Create an Account
username: password:
 
  MemeStreams Logo

MemeStreams Discussion

search


This page contains all of the posts and discussion on MemeStreams referencing the following web page: Mr. Greenspan's Warning. You can find discussions on MemeStreams as you surf the web, even if you aren't a MemeStreams member, using the Threads Bookmarklet.

Mr. Greenspan's Warning
by Rattle at 9:32 pm EST, Feb 27, 2004

It is always difficult to decipher just what the often-opaque Fed chairman means.

The New York Times shares your confusion.

No quote or phrase as memorable as "Irrational Exuberance" has come out of Greenspan's most recent comments, but there is no doubt of a sharp edge that can be felt slowly cutting. I hope our parents enjoy their Social Security. Security related problems seem to be the forte of my generation. Not all of them are globalized in nature, most are very domestic, much like Social Security. I don't feel very secure. I don't feel like anyone is looking out for us, and at the same time expecting us to do all the hard work and take all the hard breaks.


 
RE: Mr. Greenspan's Warning
by Jeremy at 10:55 pm EST, Feb 27, 2004

Rattle wrote:
] I don't feel like anyone is looking out for us.

Consider reading "Fabric of the Cosmos", and perhaps it will become more clear to you.

You seem to be looking for a guardian angel just over your shoulder or up around the bend. You may not find anything there, but, to quote Rumsfeld, such an absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence.

The guardians of your future (and present) did their part sixty-plus years ago. They paid a different form of tax.


  
RE: Mr. Greenspan's Warning
by Rattle at 9:50 pm EST, Feb 28, 2004

Jeremy wrote:
] Consider reading "Fabric of the Cosmos", and perhaps it will
] become more clear to you.

Yeah, yeah. I know. We have to save the country for the next generation. Evolution and mutation. I am sending the encrypted signal to the cosmos. Sure, I get it. Believe it or not, I have a very clear view of the situation. I reserve the right to be annoyed by the fact its flaunted in my face by my current leaders.

] You seem to be looking for a guardian angel just over your
] shoulder or up around the bend. You may not find anything
] there, but, to quote Rumsfeld, such an absence of evidence
] does not constitute evidence of absence.

I don't want a guardian angel. However, the idea that someone must be on complete edge to truly achieve, is an idea that only creates soldiers, pissed off people, and psychos. I don't really enjoy the idea of doing it on a massive country wide scale. I don't trust those who do.

Happen, get educated, work, do good, get old, die. Simple model. Make it happen again. I get it. [smile]

Casting the idea that dismantling Social Security to wage war, is saying that America is willing to sacrifice the well being of its own people in order to make preemptive attacks. That's a pretty beefy statement to make. Does this administration think they are that right, like really right, about everything they are doing? I reserve my judgment. I'd prefer if my leaders reserved my Social Security, as opposed to giving tax breaks that don't really benefit me.

] The guardians of your future (and present) did their part
] sixty-plus years ago. They paid a different form of tax.

If a "plan" exists, and you do suggest that, I fear its setting up American society for a country wide network style failure of an entire generation. This is the type of logic and setup that creates Catholic church sex scandals, at their root cause. Be careful what you do in bulk. You may not be able to spot your failures until they happen, in bulk.

Either that, or the tax we are going to pay is, maybe, one out of every 5 or 6, maybe 10 of our friends? How does that whole killed in war in any given generation thing work anyway? Is there a formula? Is that what you are getting at? Who tallies that anyway?


Mr. Greenspan's Warning
by Jeremy at 9:26 am EST, Feb 27, 2004

It is always difficult to decipher just what the often-opaque Fed chairman means.

The New York Times shares your confusion.


Mr. Greenspan's Warning
by k at 11:42 pm EST, Feb 27, 2004

] Under questioning, he acknowledged that Congress was
] unlikely to solve the deficit problem solely by cutting
] spending and would inevitably have to raise some taxes to
] keep deficits manageable. We took his testimony to mean
] that long-term deficit reduction is more important than
] permanent tax cuts. The White House, alas, is taking the
] opposite approach. It wants the tax cuts locked in before
] it provides any serious plan for how to restrain future
] deficits.

[ The White House exercises some seriously selective hearing. All the time. -k]


 
 
Powered By Industrial Memetics