Greenspan Wants Bush To Win in 2004, Here's The Proof

[Yavin4]

Go to this link: http://www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/fundsrate.htm

Scroll down the page until you get to a chart called: "Intended federal funds rate".


A lot of people defend Alan Greenspan, but there's no arguing facts. Just look at his interest rates policies since 1990. Through Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, the only president where he constantly raised interest rates was Clinton. Take a look at 1994, a non-boom year, he raised rates six times, just in time for the 1996 election. He repeated this in 1999 and 2000.

Now, look at his interest rate policy under Bush II. For all of 2001, he cut interest rates at every Fed meeting to a historic low of 1.75, and what did he do in 2002 and 2003, he not only kept rates low, he cut them again.

Low interest policy is the sole reason why the Dow is back over 10,000 and why the economy "booming". Now, I ask the naysayers this question:

If Greenspan is not politicizing interest rate policy, how do you explain the need to keep rates at a 40-year low, even though the economy is booming and the job data is also improving? Also, how do you explain Greenspan raising rates in 1994, even though the economy was still struggling that year as well?

[Vadem]

1. Well, we all know he is a Repub and has been from the ....

beginning. I know I was P.O. at Clinton praising him to the skies.

[loudnclear]

2. I said this in 1999. Clinton even stated that there was no need raise

interest rates since inflation was not an issue. Go back and check the record and Clinton's speeches.

My take on Greenspan and the other elite Republicans is that they could not stand to have some many "undeserving" (translated: not born wealthy)middle-income people making the kind of money they made in the stock market under Clinton. It ushered in a whole new group of high-income families and made a few thousand millionaires who had no right to be that wealthy according to the privileged classes headed by the Republicans. Greenspan talked the markets down every chance he got--often trying to speak from both sides of his mouth in a veiled attempt to appear to be unbiased. He socked to Clinton and the those whose new wealth was tied up in the markets. After that, it was difficult for the likes of the ENRONS to contain their lying and cheating. But for the most part, only the newly rich were hurt during the ENRON and others' exposures. What's losing a few million to multimillionaires who would get it back with the Bush tax cuts?

tell me I'm wrong. Haven't been so far.

[Cleita]

8. You are right about this one.

eom

[BenZodiac]

3. well

Then why didn't Clinton fire him?

I see what you are saying, but if he was so partisan, why didn't Clinton replace him during one of his 8 years?

[htuttle]

4. 'Common Wisdom' said that Wall St loved him

I saw it characterized by the TV talking heads as Greenspan being the 'adult' watching over fiscal policy. Some pundits said that Clinton would have lost the confidence of 'The Street' had he fired Greenspan.

[Vadem]

6. Because of the "triangulation" that *=?()* Dick Morris convinced...

Clinton to undertake. Clinton appointed more Repubs to his cabinet (I think) than any other Dem. Pres. (It certainly seemed so, although I haven't researched it, to state so categorically.)

[Yavin4]

7. A President Cannot Fire The Head of the Federal Reserve Bd.

Clinton did re-appoint him because financial markets love stability. If Clinton did not re-appoint him, the markets would have revolted and millions of people would have lost their jobs and billions of dollars.

[wanderingbear]

5. Ofcourse he does..

Hes had to lie about the econmoy for to many years.. A Bush loss would expose his lies..