Is it true that Bush NOT keep Greenspan as head of the Fed?

[anthony]

I'll be right behind you.Bush and those Republican Conservatives are going to turn this country upside down.

------------------

Anthony

[PinkFloyd40]

clinton reappointed greenspan so he's at least there a few more years, but after that who knows. would be the biggest mistake since nam, ok well maybe no that big, but big

-Rob

------------------

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they never use" -Soren Kierkegaard

"People who know little are usually great talkers, while men who know much say little." -Rousseau

"One must learn to be a sponge if one wants to be loved by hearts that overflow." -Frederich Neitzsche 2-Brandie&Rob-11

[kitty19]

hey shawn, how is your semester going? we need to get together sometime.. i am heading to the bars at amherst this weekend.. let me know if you will be around..

but to answer your question, there is much speculation about Greenspan planning on retire anyway. look at how old he is! and to my knowledge, the Federal Reserve is NOT a part of the government, so i don't think he has authority over that. if anything, Bush should be KISSING GREENSPAN'S ASS.

------------------

*kitty19*

*turn it around baby*

[SPHERIC]

Well, it depends on what tax bracket your in. This is the first time since Dwight Eisenhower that the house(rep. controlled), the senate(50/50 rep.,dem.) and the presidents office will be republican. Rich get richer, poor get poorer! I know that sucks but...

[PinkFloyd40]

Originally posted by kitty19:

hey shawn, how is your semester going? we need to get together sometime.. i am heading to the bars at amherst this weekend.. let me know if you will be around..

but to answer your question, there is much speculation about Greenspan planning on retire anyway. look at how old he is! and to my knowledge, the Federal Reserve is NOT a part of the government, so i don't think he has authority over that. if anything, Bush should be KISSING GREENSPAN'S ASS.

its independent of the government in theory, but since the president appoints its governors and the chairman there is executive influence in monetary policy

being as clinton reappointed him, he has at least four more years as head unless he were to retire. i don't think will be happening toooo soon though

------------------

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they never use" -Soren Kierkegaard

"People who know little are usually great talkers, while men who know much say little." -Rousseau

"One must learn to be a sponge if one wants to be loved by hearts that overflow." -Frederich Neitzsche 2-Brandie&Rob-11

[johnb]

One word answer to the original question- NO!

Don't forget, Greenspan is a Republican and was one of Reagan's top economic advisers before he became Fed Chief. He was appointed by Reagan in 86, reappointed by Bush once then by Clinton twice. Current term runs to 2004 when he will probably retire as he's already in his late 70s and is starting to look it.

Guys, whoever you voted for, it doesn't matter, the country will not change a whole lot either way. I voted Bush because I hate Gore, but I think the country would have been ok under Gore too, just better under Bush.

JohnB

[PinkFloyd40]

Originally posted by johnb:

One word answer to the original question- NO!

Don't forget, Greenspan is a Republican and was one of Reagan's top economic advisers before he became Fed Chief. He was appointed by Reagan in 86, reappointed by Bush once then by Clinton twice. Current term runs to 2004 when he will probably retire as he's already in his late 70s and is starting to look it.

Guys, whoever you voted for, it doesn't matter, the country will not change a whole lot either way. I voted Bush because I hate Gore, but I think the country would have been ok under Gore too, just better under Bush.

JohnB

i agree w/ the legislation pretty evenly divided and no clear majority it will be a rather dull four years

and though gore didn't win, democrats achieved a goal anyway, managing to turn this presidency to lame duck status. my guess is the next president after bush will not be a republican no matter who the democrat is, unless he's just terrible

------------------

"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they never use" -Soren Kierkegaard

"People who know little are usually great talkers, while men who know much say little." -Rousseau

"One must learn to be a sponge if one wants to be loved by hearts that overflow." -Frederich Neitzsche 2-Brandie&Rob-11

[johnb]

Originally posted by PFloyd40:

i agree w/ the legislation pretty evenly divided and no clear majority it will be a rather dull four years

and though gore didn't win, democrats achieved a goal anyway, managing to turn this presidency to lame duck status. my guess is the next president after bush will not be a republican no matter who the democrat is, unless he's just terrible

You tell me the state of the economy in fall 2004 I'll tell you with 90% probability whether he will get reelected. That's what it all hangs on. Gore should have landslided Bush this year with the current state of the economy, he was just a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign. Bush is actually a decent campaigner, better than his father, much better than Gore, but certainly no Reagan or Clinton. If the economy in 2004 is the same as in 2000, George Bush will landslide whoever he faces. And vice-versa.

JohnB

[kitty19]

pfloyd, thanks for clearing that up.

------------------

*kitty19*

*turn it around baby*

[princetonguy]

Economy runs itself, all the big economic booms in the country have had little to do with what the president has done, but what society has created or started. First big boom, the roaring 20's stock market/buying on margin makes investors lots of money, then the economy tumbles. World War 2, causes a boom in the economy. Vietnam War another boom in the economy. 94-present internet, wall street goes mainstream, consumers have high confidence and the upperclass/upper middle start spending large amounts of money, this causes demand for products to go up, and more middle class to be employed. Bush could start a huge war to help out the economy, but it most likely won't have the same effect as wars of years past.

The Republicans have a philosophy that if the rich are given tax cuts, they will be more likely to take that cash and put it into the economy, this will cause the economy to grow and keep middle class people from losing their jobs.

What really works is no tax cuts and let the fed do all the work, even though Greenspan has been very lucky as of late. The fed will counteract any type of tax cut anyway with raising the discount rate and taking cash out of the economy.

Gore wanted a tax cut for the middle class which would have pretty much done nothing at all, cause it would never get passed.

Both candidates are all talk, cause it is the Finance committee that heads all taxation rules for the US, and the President can only put forth legislation to that committee and hope it gets through there, then through the house, then through the senate.

kevin

[Guest Shawn Mass]

If this is true I'm moving to Montreal!

-Shawn

------------------

-Shawn

"Opinions are like cell phones, every asshole has one!"

shawnmass@clubbersworld.com

www.clubbersworld.com