"You said monetary, didn't you?"
Today on his radio show, Larry Elder played the tape of the moment in the 2004 Democrat presidential debate when Peter Jennings asked Al Sharpton who he, as president, would put on the Federal Reserve Board and what his overall monetary policy would be. The answer was one for the ages.
I was never a fan of Jennings, but this was the peak of his career as far as I am concerned.
Below is the transcript. (I am still trying to find the video.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064158/posts
JENNINGS: If during your term as president, if you become the nominee, and you have the opportunity to nominate someone to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, what kind of person would you consider for the job? You can name someone in particular, if you have someone in mind. And maybe just take a minute or so to give us a little bit about your views on monetary policy.
SHARPTON: I think, first of all, we must have a person at the Monetary Fund that is concerned about growth of all, not setting standards that would, in my judgment, protect some and not elevate those that cannot, in my view, expand and come to the levels of development and the levels of where we need to be. I think part of my problem with how we're operating at this point is that the IMF and the policies that are emanating there do not lead to the expansion that is necessary for our country and our global village to rise to levels that underdeveloped countries and those businesses in this country can have the development policies necessary.
JENNINGS: Forgive me, Reverend Sharpton, but the question was actually about the Federal Reserve Board.
SHARPTON: I thought you said IMF, I'm sorry.
JENNINGS: No, I'm sorry, sir. And what you'd be looking for in a chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
SHARPTON: Oh, in the Federal Reserve Board, I would be looking for someone that would set standards in this country, in terms of our banking, our - in how government regulates the Federal Reserve as we see it under Greenspan, that we would not be protecting the big businesses; we would not be protecting banking interests in a way that would not, in my judgment, lead toward mass employment, mass development and mass production. I think that - would I replace Greenspan, probably. Do I have a name? No.
And this guy is the new host at MSNBC?
4 comments:
Uhh... Rip Van Fousesquawk, this is 2012! That 2004 debate was EIGHT YEARS AGO. We can all be glad that he's not president, unlikely though it always was.
Perhaps if we're really honest, we could all reaffirm that electing a president is not a popularity contest, or a matter of who says the right words, but about who would do an effective and productive job of GOVERNING, which is a uniquely complex job of administering a huge bureaucracy.
Of course we all want an effective administrator who has the right policies at heart, and we as citizens disagree about what those are, but I'd say, on the Republican side, what I just said rules out Perry, Bachman, Palin, Gingrich, and probably leaves Huntsman and Romney standing, although Huntsman is by far the better man.
During this debate Sharpton reminded me of a movie title:
CLUELESS
Well, you can see what the Democrats are really against in his statement: "...we would not be protecting banking interests in a way that would not, in my judgment, lead toward mass employment, mass development and mass production."
They want to redistribute the wealth created by the free market system, not anything that would lead to "mass employment" (food stamps are so much easier) or "mass development" (that would be taking advantage of somebody or something) and certainly not "mass production" (that would mean there would be more goods and services and somebody could make a profit on it). So much easier to just elect someone who will simply give entitlements to those who choose to sit on their asses as a "life style" choice.
I don't believe this was a misstatement at all. This is the established Democratic strategy on winning elections: promise new entitlements, new rights, new freebees to as many constituencies as possible to get votes and more power to central government. The more power in government, the more dependent the people are on it and the less liberty they have. The more red tape and regulations they can devise, the more jobs and job security they get... all the while stifling any enterprise and while (always) disregarding the consequences.
As Malik Ali says, "Hey! The money is there! They got the money! It is just a question of who gets it." the Wall street bankers or the students and poor people.
In their vision, nobody has to work or to produce. They can stay children on their parents A & H policies until age 26 and in their homes for as long as they want. The Government will supply them with food, walking around money, and even cell phones, XBoxes, and Wii games. Who has to work? All you have to do is to vote for Obama to get some of his stash.
.
Miggie, I won't take up the space on Gary's site necessary to offer a coherent and sensible answer to your rambling rant.
Instead, I've put it here:
http://siarlysjenkins.blogspot.com/2011/08/distributing-wealth-and-income.html
Feel free to comment. We eat trolls for breakfast.
Post a Comment