posted 01-31- 08:07 PM            

However, about a year ago he started trying
to fuck up the economy with interest rate
hikes. I believe he did this to try and
derail the economy for the November election.
He fucked up because the economy didn't really
start to go downhill until about election
time or a little after. He's now busting his
butt lowering interest rates (-1% in the last
month) in order to jump start the economy
and make our court appointed pres. look good.

Normally this guy is apolitical but he is a
card carrying member of the RNC come election
time.

Just wanted this to be conscidered when you
hear a republican saying that Clinton fucked
up the economy before Bush took over. They
are saying this quite a bit lately. More of
their usual smoke and mirrors.

posted 01-31- 09:53 PM               

And of course, since you know it then Clinton must have also known that Greenspan is a RNC lackey. That must be why Clinton kept him. LOL

posted 02-01- 03:47 PM            

He did a fairly good job under Reagan, Bush
and Clinton. He will probably do a good job
now under Bush Jr. He did try to screw up
the economy before the fall election in order
to help Bush Jr. get elected. He is now
trying to straighten it out to make Bush Jr.
look good and because that's his job.

posted 02-01- 05:04 PM               

First of all, he can't do it by himself. He is the head of the Federal Reserve Board. There are several (don't know the number) members, all appointed, and all vote on rate changes. Even if he wanted to do something to purposely screw up the economy, the other board members would have to be in on it. Geesh, you and Hilary's right-wing conspiracy. LOL

Secondly, the reason Greenspan has lasted through so many administrations of right, left and center Presidents is that he is NOT political. He is a straight shooter with extremely high ethics. Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton and now GW all trust him. What makes you think you know more than them?

Thirdly, if he has that much power and is that political, why didn't he prevent the economy from slowing down just before the 92 elections and keep George Sr. in office?Remember Clinton's campaign theme, "It's the economy, stupid".

posted 02-01- 05:21 PM            

All the polls showed from day 1 that the last
election was going to be a whisker thin race.
Greenspan is a republican. He was just trying
to throw the edge Bush's way. Probably under
orders from your buddy Hailey Barbour.

posted 02-01- 08:00 PM               

"Running" the economy is not really possible in theory, and although all this interest rate stuff does play a roll, it is a rather small roll.

No one person or thing controls the economy, rather many, many small aspects all add up to create the wondrous and complex economic world.

Any thinking person should realize that political and legislative input only effects the economy down the road, and even then the direct results of any work can never really be calculated.

To suggest otherwise would be like a weather man insisting that we are going to have a late spring because of all the man made snow at the ski mountains this year.

Greenspan was right about one key thing: we were not experiencing the same "real" inflation that the numbers showed, rather profits were up due to increased productivity. This was key to the economic boom of the 90's.

The problem now is that the boom was too good for too long and people got cocky. Companies became over-valued - now we are seeing only a "fair" market check. That is why there is talk that we are not in a recession, but rather just a market re-adjustment.

Also it is Greenspan's job to "fuck with the economy" - it always has been. There is no secret ploy as you suggest.

In fact, the economy was a no-lose issue for Gore anyway. Bush did not win on the economy platform... except with conservatives like me

posted 02-01- 08:54 PM            

Until this deal with the last election I
would have said Greenspan is an honest person.
Now I'm not quite so sure. It scares me to
think what will happen if we get a dishonest
person as chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Lets say one that could be bought off by
special interest groups such as big business
or would operate his post according to the
dictates of a political party.

If you think he's not so powerful, how 'bout
we put Bill Clinton in there to run things
for a while? LOL, I'll bet you would talk
a different story then.

posted 02-01- 09:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smokey:
He is political, just like the US supreme
court, and he proved it the last election.

---

In other words Smokey, Greenspan and the Supreme Court are objective if you agree with them and "political" if you don't agree with them.

Your conceit is mind boggling. I pity you.

posted 02-01- 09:56 PM               

Many people could do much worse damage to the economy with a few decisions... but, alas, people are not all evil and they tend to do a pretty good job, or at least act responsibly. Greenspan is MUCH more worried about Greenspan than about Clinton or Bush. It seems that you put a much higher importance on the presidency than most economy concerned people.

In fact, I would not have been so passionate about the presidency had it not been that I was a Bush supporter before he was a candidate. He is just someone I look up to...

I love what he is doing so far... it is so neat to see him enacting the things that he spoke about way before he was a candidate. I remember his eloquent talk about funding faith based organizations- the same ones that were the great welfare of the old strong America. Why should being cut-off from government funds be their reward for the great service they have done humanity?

And no, Bush is NOT doing this because he is a "psycho-Christian", but rather because he is a "compassionate conservative." We believe that these faith based organizations do MUCH more for their communities than the government can. I know that my church (and I am not really a Christian) does so much and is so open. If I even run into desperate times, I will turn to a church...

And all this without preaching- they are not trying to convert, but are just living their faith... and for that kindness to their fellow man they are punished by the liberals who suggest the government can care more...

To all you who think Bush is full of crap, FU all - I have heard him speak so long ago, and now he is delivering. If you disagree with his ideas, tougho! Disagree all you want, but my man is doing the job he promised me that he would...

posted 02-02- 02:35 AM               

Hmmm... not sure about that. Did you watch the inauguration ceremony? Both the benediction and invocation were concluded in Christ's name. I find that offensive and arrogant, don't you? The inauguration is for everyone in this country, not just Christians. It should be a non-denominational event. After all, this is a multi-denominational nation, not a Christian nation, as the fanatical Pat Robertson would have us believe.

On top of that, Bush said that he is a "uniter, not a divider". False words as proven in the first few hours of his installation.

I sure hope that this federal funding of faith-based help-organizations will be a multi-denominational effort, but if the inauguration was an indication, the money will probably all go to Pat Robertson.

posted 02-02- 08:45 AM            

I find the whole case rather hypocritical myself. It's OK for Bush to cut off funds for groups that support or help fund abortions, and at the same time pump my tax dollars into churches?

Sounds to me like he is on a Conservative Christian agenda. I don't like it one bit.

I am not an aethiest, but I agree with the seperation of church and state. If you slap the women's rights groups in face, then you should also slap the dudely do right churches in the face as well.

But, when you swear into government service, you wind up saying "so help me God" at the end anyway. Who knows.

I agree with JT....Bush is not a uniter, he is a divider. The state of Texas, now out of the national spotlight, is feeling the reprocussions of a dubbya led state government already. We have no money to fund education and teachers' salaries. And his 'voluntary emmission' plan did ZERO to reduce emmissions in old factories and plants.

posted 02-02- 01:07 PM            

What about an athiest? Is it right to take
their tax dollars and give them to a
relegion? Especially since the republicans
raise so much hell about part of a union
members dues being used for political
purposes without their express consent.

Oh yeah, speaking of politics, does a
denomination who tends to vote for the party
in power get more funds or easier access
to funds than a denomination that doesn't
usually vote for the party in power?

posted 02-02- 01:54 PM               

Sv arn't you one of the guys that was saying less goverment? Less taxes?

Let people live for themselves and make there own way.

Now your just replacing goverment controled welfare by giving money to christian religions to dole out to people under hard times? Course only good chrisitian people.

It is my opinion that if a church wants to help out less fortunate people it should do it with its own money and get NO money from the goverment, only from its own "SHEEP"

Isn't it good enough that they are tax exempt?

What religions are supposed to get this money?

I have a religion, I'm an ordained minister, my bible is in my head and it is revised daily. Where can I pick up my check to support my sheep?

Religion has no place in politics. NONE.

It should be against the law to even mention it in the inauguration. Or at least the people of america should be horrified that it was.

Course I also don't belive anyone should be swearing anything on the bible. Specialy in goverment or courts.

"Why should being cut-off from government funds be their reward for the great service they have done humanity"

The great service they have done for humanity?

Your joking right?

posted 02-02- 02:11 PM               

Yep... and the real rub is that this story got almost no attention in the media. That's pretty remarkable if you consider the fact that Bush's inauguration was perhaps the first to use Christ's name. Where is this liberal and anti-Christian media bias that Limbaugh and M. Reagan keep talking about? On NPR? LOL!

posted 02-02- 02:20 PM               

That said, my understanding is this:

Despite your knee jerk reactions, the program is NOT just for right wing Christain groups. All religions qualify - Christain, Jewish, Muslum, etc.

The money does NOT go to the churches but to church sponsored officially recognized charities - like the Salvation Army, St. Vincent DePaul, or Boys Town.

IMO the "screening" process of what are legitimate church charities should be at least as stringent as the "screening" done now for non-church charities before they qualify for government grants/assistence.

posted 02-02- 05:24 PM               

I hear ya on fighting poverty but I don't think it has much to do with giving people money or clothes or food. Those are extreamly short term solutions.

I don't have to quote the famous fish story right?

Poverty is an extreamly complex problem and deserves a 100% effort to combat.

You have to look at the reasons why people are poor.

Lazy
Lack of opertunity
lack of education
Addicition
physical disability or illness
Mental illness
not knowing any better, some people don't know that there is anything more then what they have now.
Lack of motivation, which isn't quite the same as laziness. Similar but not the same.

You would really need a large base of resources to call on and a 1 on 1 worker to take charge/care of the person.

Analyze the problems, correct if possible.

Throwing money at it in the form of rent, food stamps, food banks, and all that does nothing for the poor person.

That may be helpfull though if you are at the same time slowly trying to motivate them to look for something better and supply REAL training, And I'm not talking stuff like how to act at an interview.

I still have a problem with the religious people doing this.

Here have some money and be sure to come say thanks to god this sunday or sat or whatever.

posted 02-02- 05:59 PM               

How dare you suggest that your pseudo-religion is on par with the good work Chriatains and others have done. You might as well claim you are a vet as well.

No of you have the basic understanding if what good is done in this country by religious groups.

You are mean, bad people at heart. I hope that no one helps you when you need it- you don't deserve it.

posted 02-02- 06:13 PM               

All the good paying jobs in the world aren't going to help the single mother with 5 kids, or the gang member who would rather "hang out" than go to school, or the druggies, or the street person who needs to be institutionalized but won't be because the ACLU won't allow it.

The root cause for poverty in America is not economics, it's cultural. And this is where getting churches involved might help. They don't just hand out money. They attack the life style and choices that people make that lead to poverty, and they try to offer some hope to people who have been abused by life in one way or another. If it takes giving a person "faith" as a crutch so they can cope then so be it.

posted 02-02- 06:16 PM               

If you REALLY cared about the people, you would invest in the church, they can do MUCH better with the money.

And the fact is, this IS my money, and I want it to go where it will do the most good.

It is so sad to see people who claim to want to help poor souls and make the world a better place not supporting the churches. Here is the rare place where people come together and make the world a better place. Just look at the black churches, an oasis of common sense and hope for the future- a safe heaven for self-criticism.

posted 02-02- 06:46 PM               

I have not had the opportunity to serve my country militarily, although some of the posts here may count towards combat time...

I have not saved the world- I help where I can. I just gave a guy a job who was not really qualified. One of my employees (x-employee ) knew him form church and said he really needed a job - and wanted to learn computers. He showed a very positive attitude and wanted to learn. We trained him and set him up for an operations job. He got the job after being with us for one month.

It is a very small thing, but that is all most can squeeze in.

I support our local music shows, we have much talent! I supply sound equipment, sponsor adds, and play in all the shows. I feel that these shows are better than school for the kids - they are much more challenging and these kinds get more confidence than other kids.

I support our local church, they do great work!

My wife and I a part of the downtime improvement team (were). Various events raised money to re-build the historic town hall and modernize the downtown area.

And I know you think business is evil, but there are dozens of people working now because of these new businesses- where would then be if there were no businesses to work for?

I have not done enough, you are correct. But I have dreams to do more - I just think my contribution is in my occupation now, but my dream is to create a new way to educate - I want to raise the private school to equal or better attendance than the public school system.

It probably will never happen, but somehow I learned how to dream things even though public school teaches people to be cynical and hold the world in contempt.

Maybe my time will come to serve, I hope I never have to- but I am ready. We all will die someday, I only hope I can live a life full of thankfulness for today, and optimistic hope for the future.

Those who live in fear and paranoia - those who are filled with negative energy- no matter how hard they worry and complain - they will die to. It is all how you live... we are all free, the potential is unlimited - you only need to believe, it is really true!

Remember this most when you are at your hardest time, this is where the greatest strength comes from...

posted 02-02- 06:50 PM               

Bush just wants to remove the current barrier these faith based organizations have to put up with. It masquerades under the notion of "separation of church and state." - but it should not be considered as such. After all, should government welfare not go to Christian people? Isn't' that the government supporting a religion? It is silly in both cases.

If a social service company is doing well and not discriminating based on faith or whatnot, then they should be eligible.

posted 02-02- 07:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by JT:
Well, as long as secular groups aren't left out, I'm all for it. I guess we'll see how it plays out.

The secular groups already get millions (if not billions) of dollars. This isn't being taken away from them. His plan would never fly if it was. There may be some "competition" for budgeted dollars among social service groups, but that's the case now.

I still think he should apologize for turning the inauguration into a Christian event, though.

---

Gee, I never knew that Bush is the one who convinced George Washington and every President since to take the oath on a Christain bible. Nor was I aware that Bush is the one who started the prayer tradition at the inauguration. He must be really old!

And how dare he refer publically to his faith. Why that alone must have corrupted the minds of millions!

Why are liberals so afraid of institutions that teach values? I'm not a Christain and it didn't offend me.

posted 02-02- 08:30 PM            

The prayers at Bush's inauguration didn't
offend me either. It offended me that he
got inaugurated to start with.

However I can see where people could be
concerned.