Fill me in on Alan Greenspan..

watching him right now and basically all the repugs are kissing his ass and he is kissing bushs ass (everything bush says is right everything the left says is bullshit) ... is he a republican or no?

He also is a regular at the White House.

As of 2004, Greenspan visited the WH more times during this administration than the last three put together.


Last year Greenspan told Congress Bush's plan wouldn't do anything to protect SS. Now he's saying it will.


www.americanprogress.org has a set of articles on Greenspan and his flip-flop on SS.

the Repubs have a mortgage on his manhood.....

used to be a respected figure by all but since awol has been in office has shown himself to be nothing but a partisan hack. he's shilled for the wreckless tax cuts that have caused the massive defecit and soaring debt that he always claimed to be against. now he will shill for the elimination of SS. the great nytimes columnist paul krugman recently wrote a great piece about him check the archives at nytimes editorial. it is a must read.

high. Even people in congress asked him to stop, they felt it was getting too high.

He thinks that keeping workers wages low and credit easily available is good for the economy: never mind the record bankruptcies, record high personal debt, and record low savings rate in this country.

As long as the workers stagnate and get easy credit, they're happy!

Greenspan IMO is more dangerous than Dubya, because so many people (even on the "left") admire him. He's a supply-side monitorist who has nothing but the interests of Wall Street in mind.

She brought up the increasing concentration of wealth in the hands of fewer people and the corresponding impoverishment of the middle-class. Greenspan affirmed that (as he's said for decades) the survival of a "democratic society" is dependent upon the equitable distribution of economic benefits, contrary to what he's seen "for the last 20 years"(!).

This affirms and underlines what I've been beating the drum about on DU for months and months and months: The problems we're seeing, especially with Social Security, are rooted in the war on the working class. The most concise depiction of this is in the Gini Ratio, which has risen from around 0.34 in 1970 to over 0.42 today. We have become a Banana Republic, controlled by Banana Republicans. (Chimps love bananas.)

(sp on purpose)

What is "Gini" ratio?

Thanks

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2894430#2899066

Perhpas I should work up a Demopedia article, but Wikipedia has one that helps. There's plenty on the web.

Simplistically stated, low is "good" and high is "bad". :shrug:

then, things have gotten worse. Gee, I noticed that myself.

I personally would like to see a Gini Ratio below 0.300. When a single individual can accumulate a net 'worth' that's greater than the sum of all the net worths of 60% of the households in the entire country, then there's something very, very wrong with our economic system. It may be 'legal' but it just ain't 'right.'

There are, of course, many other serious considerations besides income distribution ... but that's a biggie, and it coincides with other injustices.

The Federal Reserve is a "privately owned" corporation.

It has absolutely no connection to our constitutional federal government.


ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8 OF THE CONSTITUTION STATES THAT CONGRESS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO COIN (CREATE) MONEY AND REGULATE THE VALUE THEREOF.

IN 1935 THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT CONGRESS CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY DELEGATE ITS POWER TO ANOTHER GROUP. (Reference 22, P. 168)

Rothschild, a London Banker, wrote a letter saying "It (Central Bank ) gives the National Bank almost complete control of national finance. The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class... The great body of the people, mentally incapable of comprehending, will bear its burden without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (contrary) to their interests."

The bankers created the legislation for the FED

In 1913, before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, Mr. Alexander stated: "But the whole scheme of a Federal Reserve Bank with its commercial-paper basis is an impractical, cumbersome machinery, is simply a cover, to find a way to secure the privilege of issuing money and to evade payment of as much tax upon circulation as possible, and then control the issue and maintain, instead of reduce, interest rates. It is a system that, if inaugurated, will prove to the advantage of the few and the detriment of the people of the United States. It will mean continued shortage of actual money and further extension of credits; for when there is a lack of real money people have to borrow credit to their cost."

more...

http://www.pushhamburger.com/fed.htm

A fossil whose time has come and gone. Even at it's WORST he praised *'s economic policies as if they were cast down from Keynes himself.

Instead, we have the Monitorist pro-rich Greenspan running the show.

What's even worse is that SOME DEMOCRATS actually LIKE what he's done for the economy. Worse yet, Clinton even reappointed the bugger in the 1990s!