It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wait, it gets worse (Bush Gets to Pick Alan Greenspan's Replacement Too)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
If you like the War President's handling of the war, and you admire the Constitutional President's handling of the Supreme Court, you're going to love how the Deficit President takes on the economy!

Bush Preparing for Greenspan Successor
Tuesday October 4, 2:34 pm ET
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer
BizYahoo.com

Bush Readies for Greenspan Successor at Federal Reserve; Greenspan to Leave in Just Over 3 Months


WASHINGTON (AP) -- Now that he's tackled the Supreme Court openings, President Bush is preparing for another high-profile nomination: a successor to Alan Greenspan, whose 18-year run at the Federal Reserve comes to an end in just over three months.

Often referred to as the second-most powerful person in the United States, Greenspan's last day is expected to be Jan. 31.

Speaking at a wide-ranging news conference on Tuesday, Bush touched briefly on the White House's efforts to select a new Fed chairman. He called the process to find Greenspan's replacement "ongoing."

"There is a group of people inside the White House ... who will bring forth nominees," Bush said.


But isn't that the problem? That group inside the White House, and more specifically them bringing forth nominees?

Didn't Dick pick himself to be "Big Time?" "Hustlin' Harriet" hustle through her own nomination? I don't know if it's cronyism that selected Brown for FEMA or the ability to make a cute nickname out of Brownie, but either way do we really need "Cappy" to Chair the Federal Reserve the next couple generations?



Respect to Billmon


Frequent mentions for Greenspan's job are [not surprisingly all "Bush Whackers"]:

--Ben Bernanke: A former Fed board member, he recently became Bush's top economist.

--Martin Feldstein. An economics professor at Harvard University and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, he advised Bush when the Texas governor ran for president in 2000.

--R. Glenn Hubbard. Dean of Columbia University's graduate school of business and an economics professor, he was Bush's chief economic adviser from 2001 to 2003.


Dark horse candidates (with some precedent) for Federal Reserve Chairman to be picked by Bush include:

Hehehe.


"Moustache!" He looks smart.


"Herman Gobbles" You get me.


'Moonie...(sigh)" Stupid soul contract.


Or absolutely any gay male escort (or spy) that gets separated from his group during a White House tour.


Don't worry folks, it's just growing pains. Every nation goes through it right before utter implosion.




posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:06 AM
link   
I'm not a Greenspan fan and I look forward to him leaving, but
considering the flub W made with Harriet ... ugh .. I'm not looking
forward to being subjected to Greenspan's replacement.

(but W still isn't as bad as Kerry!
)



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Since Bush seems to only know 5 people who he repeatedly shuffles through top jobs, I think the list is quite small. Or, it might be a suprise and be someone who donated a bunch of money to the RNC (not to much of a suprise). My guess is Tom Delay. He seems to be good with money. Or how about some of the displaced CEOs from Enron, Worldcom, etc. The know their stuff.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:23 AM
link   
I was not a big fan of Greenspan either, but the man knew his job well and he has been very open about how he feels on this president spending.

Taking in consideration that most of Bush cronies are into big money I bet it would not be any problems getting one that will just make the rest of the pact happy.

Is dark days on top of us already and they are just to get darker.


Now who will control Federal Reserves new replacement if he shows to be as incompetent as Bush has been with our tax payer money spending.?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:24 AM
link   
First, Greenspan has been extremely pliable for every president since Ronald Reagan. When Clinton replaced Bush 41, Greenspan suddenly awoke to the dangers of a deficit and secular inflation.

Second. It really doesn't matter as long as it isn't Paul Volcker.
This is the Genius that was given to us by President Carter; the guy who thought we could "print" our way out of a recession. The result was inflation and economic stagnation. Called "stagflation" by anyone over the age of 35.

Third. The Federal Reserve, like all central banks is largely irrelevant.
Back in the old days when private moneychanging was illegal, the fed could control the value of the $, as well as interest rates and economic momentum. But no more. German banks especially, by underwriting American insurance companies, and offering "offshore corporate loans," are competing head-to-head with American lending institutions on US soil (which is good). This means that if the Fed raises the prime, you basically can get a "below-prime" corporate loan, by using a foreign bank. In 5 years, I predict you will be able to go directly to foreign banks for a home loan in the US.

Fourth. The Fed no longer controls the economy.
If a corporation can borrow overseas (which it can now), it "creates" more dollars in offshore accounts, without the fed being able to measure it. This means that the Fed no longer has a clue as to what the economy is actually doing.

Fifth. The President has no real choice but to pick from the FR board of govs.
He needs support in congress. They need campaign funds. The banks need "their boys" in charge. So this nomination will be the opposite of a surpise.

Wanna bet? Here's my prediction:

Roger Ferguson, Jr. He's V.P. of the board of governors. And he's black.

if I'm wrong, then it will be Donald Kohn



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SHADOW266
Or how about some of the displaced CEOs from Enron...


Ah yes .. Mr. Lay from ENRON. John Kerry owned $250,000 in stock in
Enron. Lay was on the Board of Trustees for the John Heinz III Center
(Kerry's Wife was John Heinz Widow and heir). Then there was that
dinner at the Georgetown residence of John Kerry (they have 6 or 7
'residences') on September 23, 2002 in which Ken Lay was invited.

It looks like Ken Lay might have had a better chance at being appointed
if John Kerry had won the election rather than George Bush.


But perhaps this belongs in politics rather than current events??

My vote - Herman Gobbles the turkey. He could do as well as Greenspan.


[edit on 10/6/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Yes, lets denounce constitutional rights and duties exercised by a President only because we don't like him, my how very American indeed. Also keep it going RANT I think you're on you're 4th bush bashing thread, you're on a roll



[edit on 6-10-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes, lets denounce constitutional rights and duties exercised by a President only because we don't like him, my how very American indeed. Also keep it going RANT I think your on your 4th bush bashing thread, you're on a roll



Yup. It's that First Amendment that'll get ya every time. Thanks for your "very American" complaint about the exercising of my rights.


I'll actually take any bump I can get.

Pointless off-topic derails as to poster's motives or history included. Are you sure you don't want to complain that I'm a mod too? That's popular lately as well. Unlike this President. (Hey, look I just got us back on topic!)



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Going back to the topic. . .,

In Bush own words,



"The nominees will be people that, one, obviously can do the job and, secondly, will be independent," Bush said. "It's important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent person from politics. It's this independence of the Fed that gives people, not only here in America but the world, confidence."


Taking in consideration how much faith the rest of the world have on Bush and his administration that one is going to be a hard one to sell.

Then we have to look at all the president “Men and Women” most of them buddies from Texas and link to corporate world in one way or another.

How independent is going to be the person he appoints from politics and favoritism, will depend on his personal interpretation of “Independent” or how many donations to the Republican Party he has given.



[edit on 6-10-2005 by marg6043]

[edit on 6-10-2005 by marg6043]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:29 PM
link   

Yup. It's that First Amendment that'll get ya every time. Thanks for your "very American" complaint about the exercising of my rights.


No problem, it’s very interesting that those articles of the constitution written before your fist amendment, will also get you every time too.

If I am off topic I do apologize, I just find it relevant for a member to comment on a threads intent.


Going back to the topic. . .,


Marge, a person should be judged on what their skill and capabilities are toward a certain position, rather than how well they know the president. History has shown us this many times, does the name Bobby Kennedy ring a bell?

[edit on 6-10-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I just find it relevant for a member to comment on a threads intent.


I'll share mine then. The public is overwhelmingly expressing "no confidence" on a variety of issues under the leadership of this President, notably so concerning his appointments and nominees (like Brown and Miers).

And another big vacancy is coming up.

Some (though obviously not Strangecraft) would call it the second most important position in America. And at least in my opinion, that person will leave a legacy long after Bush is just a forgotten punchline.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   
BIG vacancy is right, some consider Greenspan the second most powerful figure in the US.


Bush said. "It's important that whomever I pick is viewed as an independent person from politics. It's this independence of the Fed that gives people, not only here in America but the world, confidence."


Here's some possibles I scrounged up:

Ben Bernanke: A former Fed board member, he recently became Bush's top economist.

Martin Feldstein: An economics professor at Harvard University and president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, he advised Bush when the Texas governor ran for president in 2000.

Glenn Hubbard: Dean of Columbia University's graduate school of business and an economics professor, he was Bush's chief economic adviser from 2001 to 2003.

Donald Kohn: Kohn is a veteran of the Federal Reserve System. He is not registered with any party and has worked closely with Greenspan for many years.

Roger W. Ferguson: Jr. Vice Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and a Clinton appointee.

John B. Taylor: An economics professor at Stanford University anmd is currently the Under Secretary for International Affairs of the US Treasury.

Larry Lindsey: A Former member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and Bush advisor in economic policy.

Now I'll leave you with this great comment that Greenspan made in 1999:

"We really do not know how this system works. It's clearly new. The old models just are not working."

Comforting, isn't it... more helicopter money anyone?



[edit on 6-10-2005 by Regenmacher]



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 09:06 PM
link   
RANT there is always concern and doubt with every nominee a president may choose for an important position, however like I said before it’s their right and duty under the constitution. If we don't agree with who he/she has nominated we can call our local senator and file a complaint. I don't however, think we should make it appear as if the president is not obeying the law, and let our personal feelings toward him automatically judge anyone he picks.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
RANT there is always concern and doubt with every nominee a president may choose for an important position, however like I said before it’s their right and duty under the constitution. If we don't agree with who he/she has nominated we can call our local senator and file a complaint. I don't however, think we should make it appear as if the president is not obeying the law, and let our personal feelings toward him automatically judge anyone he picks.


I can't even relate to where you're coming from.

Just wait and file your complaints with your Senator? What, after the fact? No thanks.

As much I'd like to think Bob Dole's wife reads my every e-mail and is as concerned about the culture of cronyism in DC as I am, let's just say I have my doubts she'll be "getting right on that" or any other rising concerns without the full support of Pfizer Pharmaceuticals anytime soon.
More than likey, we'll just get more Valium in the pablum the government is already prescribing. And frankly you need to quit helping.

When you hold feet to the fire it's to make sure things go right, not to just burn someone for no reason. Call it a warning shot or anything you like, but holding your tongue and hoping for the best gets you nowhere fast in a "democracy" increasingly run by lobbyists, lunatics and the fringes of society. Especially with the current administration that considers "accountability" a dirty word, "hubris" a virtue, calls James Dobson for advice on nominees and consults the Book of Revelation for foreign policy.

We don't need less of me pointing that out. We need an army of me. Which is why I'm such a big advocate of cloning.

And I don't think anyone here has said that cronyism is against the law. BushCo, a subsidiary of Cheneyburton, Inc. (a multinational corporation loosely affiliated with Golf & Satan), is an evil entity guilty of many many things, but using the law to it's personal benefit and unscrupulous advantage is actually it's strong suit and hardly an indictable offense. Though it certainly should be.

I also hope Dr_Strangecraft is right and everything will be just fine.
Granted I haven't awarded myself an on-line doctorate in such matters, but I agree a little idiot proofing of some things goes a long way. Keep in mind though this is no amateur idiot we're dealing with here. Bush is the idiot king.

No need to point out my educated biases against him in any more threads either. I'm severely biased against brazen incompetence as I am glorified ignorance and people that line up to vote for both. I don't give proven morons a fair & balanced shake. And I don't set a place at the table for whackjobs either. This Presidency is over. Quack, quack. It jumped the shark with that "I've got political capital" speech then rode a hot air balloon into the gaping jaws of Terri Schiavo and was never heard from again. It's our job now to hold a magnifying glass on this walking gullet of an aspiring ranch hand until the heat busts the mirrored bubble he's been living in the past 5 years or the salty treat with his name on it finally does him in.

Further as to intent, considering I go to great lengths to frequently use light humor to illustrate serious points and valid concerns specifically to spare the feelings of friends and associates I personally (and usually privately) consider to be bonafide mouthbreathers for voting for this miserable failure... again... I take great offense to any suggestion of a subject I start as being meaninglessly offensive or merely "Bush Bashing." So when pressed, I'll gladly tell anyone exactly how I really feel about this administration or them.

Thanks for asking.




And considering I have no plans to stop caring about my country or starting discussions about it anytime soon, if you'd like to continue following me around and counting my recent topics I think that's an excellent endeavor for you. West Point needs sharp tacs that can count past 3 I'm sure. One day there'll be that many level 1 Iraqi battalions ready to take over the responsibilities Bush sold America's future to assume, and I'm pretty sure they'll need someone to keep a list. I'll be happy to write a glowing recommendation letter on your behalf when that time comes. That is assuming you learn to count to yourself from this point forward. Moving your lips when you think is fine.

But let me save you the trouble of counting the next pressing topic of concern right now. Medical science has now developed a prevention for cervical cancer, and Tony Perkkkin's Republican front and "Christian" lobbying organization the "Family Research Council" has already expressed they're deeply concerned about the implications. Why? Because they want women that have sex to die. There's no sugar coating their position. They want women... that have sex... to die. The Religious Right LOVES CANCER! Okay?

I can understand some people being so gad damned stupid they love this President right into the ground and are willing to take the country along with it, but I draw the ever lovin' line at CANCER. These knuckledraggers in neckties do not deserve to be rewarded with nominees that make their simple minds and sadistic hearts happy. They need to be taken out and SHOT. Understand? They hate freedom. You're supposed to drool like a puppy when I say that and agree WestPoint. Can I get a Hoo-yah?


And you can count on that topic and many more gracing a thread near you soon. You can also count on it offending both the pro-cronyism contingent as well as the pro-cancer crowd. I will never, ever lose my bias against ignorance. And you can count on that too.

So in summary
thank you for your concerns about "our" posting style, count and history as well as your suggestion "we" not "make it appear as if the president is not obeying the law, [or] let our personal feelings toward him automatically judge anyone he picks." Your concerns for the President are very important to us and will be handled in the order in which they were received. Others ahead of you with concerns that cronyism, cancer, corruption, cover-ups and conspiracies aren't getting a fair & balanced representation in "our" topics are being adroitly handled now. Experts will be along shortly to handle you as well.

While you wait, please feel free to review this extensive library of the Federalist Papers. Perhaps the spirit of your "Constitutional" concerns for cronyism can be answered there.

The Appointing Power of the Executive
Tuesday, April 1, 1788.
HAMILTON


THE President is to NOMINATE, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up ALL VACANCIES which may happen DURING THE RECESS OF THE SENATE, by granting commissions which shall EXPIRE at the end of their next session.''

It has been observed in a former paper, that "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.'' If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode of appointing the officers of the United States contained in the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union; and it will not need proof, that on this point must essentially depend the character of its administration. [...]

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. [...]

In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. [...]

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of universal venalty in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory. It has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most corrupt governments...


But not this corrupt period of corrupt government as of YET. I demand nothing less than total subservience by this administration to the letter and SPIRIT of the law, the Constitution and the best interests of the American people.

As should we all.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Mouthbreathers. right.

Rant, after a while, your endless jabs and jibes begin to look like old-fashioned, mean-spirited hate.

Hate for most of America, that would deign to excercise their own constitutional right to vote, and choose someone who is not pre-approved by Rant and whatever paleo-socialist idols you pray to.

Fewer and fewer people disagree with you on your own threads, Rant. Because you've quit engaging; now you're just raging. And not against the machine, either. Against everyone who is different from you.

Yes, yes. How dare all those truckdrivers and waitresses show up at your ballot-box. How dare they vote their consciences instead of consulting your latest Al Franken-style monologue. How dare they to not trust your ugly shrieking.

I mean hell, after you pass out enough hate on Christians, Southerners, Country Music fans, blue-collar workers, taxpayers, and family types, no wonder they quit listening to you anymore.

If you yell at people repeatedly and tell them how bad they suck, they will eventually change the channel.

And that's what has happened in America. After a generation of leftists screaming against EVERYTHING but themselves. People just quit listening.

Fewer and fewer people are even bothering to answer you. They (I) know better than to expect a fair shake from you; know better than to expect even-handed give and take.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't be rude, and still expect to have anyone to argue with.
.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
You can't have it both ways.

You can't be rude, and still expect to have anyone to argue with.


I don't want anything "both ways." And I certainly don't want to argue with people that have nothing pertinent to say. I also reserve the right to be rude to anyone rude to me. Any questions?

Feel free to follow up in slug fest if you do, or exercise your option to never respond to another post of mine if you feel like finally making good on your threats to getting around to ignoring me, this site or any affiliated enterprises.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
I got green money on this guy.

Feldstein

But of course Fox viewers never saw the Family Guy episode "Wishing on a Weinstein", so they won't get the joke.

As a side note, I never bet REAL currency, just this fake paper # they got us using. Who gets to be the bank is never this big of an issue at my house when we play monopoly. So what's the big deal?

Put a monkey in charge for all I care. It's fake money!

No worries.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 01:18 PM
link   
For next election why not just elect a chimp or a puppet to just get it over with? Chimp for someone who is smarter then Bush, or a puppet for then the republicans will stop lieing. How about Lamb Chops? "Lamb Chops will chop this deficit!"

Anyways, so how is he going to screw America this time? How about a vetrinarian? No he appointed him to womens health, how about a McDonalds worker? No wait he appointed him to a high FEMA position out near Oregon/Washington area. How about a Horse Judge? No same deal as before except it was the whole thing! How about a former bus boy? No he is in a top spot for the FCC. How about... You get my point, people with no exp., but buddies with Bush so get great jobs.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join