The Language of Betrayal

[Seth Ackerman]

> ----------
> From: 	Nathan Newman[SMTP:nathan at newman.org]
> Reply To: 	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Sent: 	Tuesday, November 28, 2000 5:28 PM
> To: 	lbo-talk at lists.panix.com
> Subject: 	Re: The Language of Betrayal
> 
> But the fundamental point is not merely fiscal policy but an active
> negotiation between President and Fed Chairman - essentially the story
> told
> by Woodward in THE AGENDA - to trade fiscal policy for lower unemployment.
> I don't know if Woodward's story is true or accurate, but there is no
> history of any equivalent deal between Reagan or Bush with the Fed
> Chairman.
> Clinton, by whatever means, managed to get the Fed to keep interest rates
> low enough to pump up unemployment (or so it is alleged that the Fed was
> able to do), something Reagan and Bush failed to accomplish in their
> relations with the Fed.
> 
> Why shouldn't Clinton get credit for that?
> 
> -- Nathan Newman
> 
> 
Is that the best argument you can make for Clinton's lasting liberal legacy?
That he was more able to give Alan Greenspan what he wanted than Ronald
Reagan or George Bush? 

Seth