So there’s “lambasts” and there’s “lambastes”, but I guess what’s happening to Greenspan is worth a new word “lamblasts”. As in “Mary had a little lamb, little lamb. Mary had a little lamb until she dynamited it” Edit: Anyway, why the heck is Greenspan saying anything to Congress? Dod they subpoena him? What’s wrong with “Bite me. I’ve retired and have some serious fishing to do”?
I read that bio in February and thought it was great. The smartest minds… oyee veh.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: > Edit: Anyway, why the heck is Greenspan saying > anything to Congress? Dod they subpoena him? > What’s wrong with “Bite me. I’ve retired and have > some serious fishing to do”? haha that’s exactly what I was thinking too. Poor old guy - all he can say is “I don’t recall senator”…
I guess election years are a pain in the a$$ even for retired maestros.
This aggravates me. CNN is nailing Greenspan, laughing at the guy for being so obtuse not too see this coming. Who else saw this coming? Greenspan may have helped to put gas on the fire, but playing the blame game in front of the congressional committee seems like the wrong approach. Why not call Greenspan up on the premise of “We could have done things better, can you come and help us to see where we went wrong and how we can do better in the future,” rather than “you were wrong, please explain what you did to mess things up so badly, and why didnt you see XXX as a problem or XXX as a future disaster” . . .
when there’s a fire…they always need a scapegoat…
As much as I thought most of the beating of AG was funny today. Let’s be serious this guy has left and become a top adviser to the folks at PIMCO and other firms/funds, and suddenly those firms with his help are gathering up Fannie/Freddie and other assets they know the government will have to bailout. Coincidence?