This to me was a really interesting interview about the man who ran the Fed for something like 16 years and under Presidents going back to the 60's and Nixon. He said the smartest of all the Presidents he served under was Bill Clinton. He wasn't too kind to Shrub or the Repugs. ( and he is one) and blamed them for the huge budget defecits. He went one further and said the Iraq war was all about oil...from what I have heard this morning the White House is none to pleased......

What an annoying man. It's a little late for his opinions on Bush to matter. He had plenty of opportunity to speak out against those big tax cuts for the rich back a few years ago - when his own pov at the time somewhat encouraged Bush & Co. I can't remember the details but Greenspan is way late weighing in on this subject.

Better late than never. His comments while late, carry a lot of weight in my opinion.

All these former Bush sycophants who made a shitload of money working for Bushcoming out years later to denounce should have had the courage of their convictions to stand up to him while their opinions may have mattered. It's great to hear their honest opinions, but it doesn't help us now. I just helps this guy (and others sure to come) sell more books and make more money on the lecture circuit.

I agree with George Twins Fan. A day (seven years) late and a dollar (billions) short. All of them, including
Alan "Atlas Shrugged" Greed-spin, should be tried for gross crimes and misdemeanors against the United States of America for what they have done.

But the first order of business HAS to be the impeachment of W and Cheney. On their total dereliction before, on the day of, and after September 11, 2001, they deserve to be removed from office, though you could easily add the racketeering-style conspiracy of lies and deceit to launch the war in Iraq; the outing of a covert CIA agent; the illegal warrantless spying on American citizens; the Abramoff bribery scandals and gross corruption; the violations of the Hatch Act; the utter abandonment of millions of Americans on the Gulf Coast (Hurricane Katrina) and the destruction of a major US city and international landmark, New Orleans; the mistreatment of US military members and veterans; repeated lies to Congress; the manipulation of voting system in 2000, 2002, and 2004, and the attempts to do so in 2006; the US Attorney scandal; the secret funding of commentators to spread government propaganda; the concealment of the Mark Foley page abuse informatioon; and on and on.

Greed-spin indicated he's still going to vote for someone from the party that has brought us Iraqmire and this whole host of debacles, so that avowal alone speaks volumes.

This is a test question:

Who did Alan Greenspan work for before he became Fed Chairman?

Correct answer gets a "hit on" by me.

TRL

Chairman of Townsend-Greenspan an economic consulting firm, and director of several major corporations. Also had a long association with Ayn Rand.

I know I was somewhat surprised by the fact that he and Andrea Mitchell are currently an item.

Didn't they marry a couple of years ago?

I have new-found respect for Jon Stewart who I just saw go toe-to-toe with Greenspan on the economics of the Fed on tonights "The Daily Show". Greenspan looked like a befuddled and dodgy old professor trying to avoid addressing the fundamentals of the phony free-market by snowing Stewart with shop-talk.

It was such a subtle ripping of a new a**hole that any proctologist would have been impressed.

I am not sure if Greenspan is married to Mitchell or not. Greenspan was supposedly dating Barbara Walters many years ago as well. The guy has gotten and been around.

Greenspan and Mitchell married in 1997.

Barbara Walters formerly dated Sen. John Warner.

Yep, Greenspan's marriage to Mitchell was clearly mentioned on 60 Minutes.

And does anyone else remember when John Warner--who's been thrice married, which is probably why he's never been a boisterous hypocrite on the "family values" front--married Elizabeth Taylor in 1976 (they divorced in 1982 or so)? I remember thinking even back then, as a kid, that that was a bizarre combo.

Sure I remember. That was during one of Liz's husky periods, at the same time Joan Rivers was relentlessly skewering her in her routines (e.g., the "Lardache" commercial spoof of Jordache jeans commercials).

I like Stewart sometimes, and I agree that Greenspan did not look good. But I think that was because Stewart was looking for simple answers to somewhat complex questions, and Greenspan has always been about very complex and nuanced answers.

As for Greenspan not speaking out against Shrub: I suggest people reread the last few years of his talks and writings. He has never been a fan of Shrub, though he did get along well with Bush Sr.

The reason he got along so well with Clinton - IMO - is that Clinton was just bright enough to know what he didn't know (no mean accomplishment actually); so Clinton surrounded himself with the brightest people he could find - sometimes regardless of party affiliation - and when the chips were down usually listened to them, or was at least less doctrinaire enough to find a compromise with them.

R

Beg to differ on this one ITJ. Stewart was looking for some humanity in the economic system whereas Greenspan assumes humanity is irrelevant. For him it is all about "economic forces" as though people were not the ones controlling them.

The major conflict, and conflicts, in the world is caused by the competing philosophies of those who believe economies should be controlled by a few and those who believe they should be controlled by many.

In a true democracy, closer to what happens in Europe, the majorities use the economy to benefit many. Something that was once called communism but is now better known as socialism (or perhaps democratic socialism) there and progressive populism here.

In our economy the primary movers are concentrated more and more in a small group interested only in its own comfort and perpetuation.

I think Stewart "gets it." Greenspan either does not or is a tool and part and parcel of that small group.