MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Yellen intends to remain her four-year term; anticipates rate increase “relatively soon”
The United States Federal Reserve chair Janet Yellen told Congress on Thursday that she is not stepping down. Her statement follows on strong attacks during the campaign from president elect Donald Trump who claimed the Fed was favoring president Barack Obama and candidate Hillary Clinton with its low interest rate policy. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAnother useless woman in a position of financial manipulation, just like the French criminal court dodger in charge of the IMF.
Nov 18th, 2016 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tit's May is prevaricating and dithering over making decisions on Brexit. She had six years practice of that at the Home Office and never made one then.
Poor yellin', you failed obfuscator . . . . .
Nov 18th, 2016 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Full employment? What are you smoking?
It's the level of work force participation and you can no longer use rhetoric to deflect from the failings of Obamy and his failed policies.
Inflation? How would you possibly have substantial inflation when you have little demand for production credit?
The emperor has no clothes.
Please exhibit some small measure of self respect and benevolence for the 99% of American citizenry - resign before you fully confirm for the world your gross ineptitude.
“hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts and additional government spending”
Nov 18th, 2016 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -2This will be interesting to watch. I bet the Republican controlled congress won't throw their toys out of the pram and shut the government down when Trump wants to raise the debt ceiling.
@ ChrisR
You asked me once if I was claiming you were sexist. I wasn't sure then, but I am now.
pram.noted.
Nov 18th, 2016 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1@ DT
Nov 19th, 2016 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try to ignore the crap from EB, she ONLY wants a level playing field for women PLUS some more for women ONLY.
And try and see the facts in each case:
Yellen - an also ran and has made some ridiculous comments. Trump has it right - she's Democrat friendly and controlled by the Deputy Chair of the Fed.;
LaGarde: criminal trial for fraud whist in office in France still pending: I think it involves 45 M Euros and her then lover, a dentist.
Tit's May: no decisions made whilst she was in the Home Office, but plenty of blunders. NOW she is 'standing up to Trump' over him imposing restrictions on Muslims (who are British Citizens) in an attempt to reduce terrorists getting into the US. EB will be so pleased she is following EB's Mom.
I gave Tit's the chance to prove me wrong about her, she has done nothing other than to convince me I am correct.
If you want to say that this means I am a sexist whatever that is up to you. But it means you cannot have any impartial objectivity.
I voted for The Blessed Margaret every time she went to the nation.
You won't have a chance to actually vote for Tit's unless she starts making good decisions and sticking to them. She will be thrown out of office as soon as the MP's realise she's fell out of favour with the voting public.
@ ChrisR
Nov 19th, 2016 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Nothing to do with EB; it's based entirely on your own words.
If you object to someone's policies, then criticise them for that. It's both a distraction from the real issues and entirely unnecessary to drag their sex or nationality into it, or to use disparaging and grammatically incorrect nicknames for them. If you do, then I and any other readers can draw our own conclusions.
About May, you object to her standing up for the rights of all British citizens? If she doesn't then does British citizenship really mean anything?
Also I won't be voting for May even if I do get the chance. I actually dislike her, just not for the same reasons as you.
@ DT
Nov 19th, 2016 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May is not standing up for British people but for Muslims born in the UK, the vast majority of whom will NEVER criticise the bat-shit mad Quran even if it meant real Brits were harmed because of it.
Trump has every right to do what he wants to protect the American people, how I wish I knew that was the case in the UK at the moment.
Why would you vote Conservative, you are a Liberal after all?
Those 'Muslims born in the UK' ARE British people. You are talking about my friends, coworkers, and their little children, all of whom Trump wants to ban from America because of their - in some cases quite nominal - religion. They are 'real Brits' and I expect the PM to stand up for ALL British people, including for example Falklanders and retirees living abroad.
Nov 19th, 2016 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Trump can of course do what he likes, but that doesn't mean everyone else has to meekly accept his racist policies.
@ DT
Nov 20th, 2016 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse -1I take it you haven't been to Burslem and the surrounding area located in Stoke On Trent?
You will see plenty of your mates standing outside the Post Offices waiting for their handouts and then getting into the driving seat of a private hire car to take them home.
Muslim females in the usual garb with at least three small kids around her, perhaps more at school, never going outside their delineated enclaves and you think the locals trust them? Not after your 'British' Muslims grown-up children were banged up for terrorism offences 'but we didn't know' the parents squawk. Why should they, they don't GAF what the kids do it seems to everyone else?
“and retirees living abroad.” Nice try, 0/10 for action other than to fuck up the passport system again, everybody has to send their passports to America now for processing. Just remind me what May did until very recently - wasn't it Home Secretary in charge of passports and were there not SEVERAL fuck-ups with passports under her watch?
So far it looks like May still hasn't made a decision other than the pathetic 'I will stand up to Trump'. Yeah, I bet she will. :o(
@ ChrisR
Nov 20th, 2016 - 02:08 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Let me be clear; I am not fond of religion in general, or Islam in particular, and I think the Muslim fundamentalism that has been sweeping the world is dangerous and self-reinforcing.
There certainly is a problem with Islamist terrorists in the west, and problems integrating immigrants, both Muslim and not.
But there are 1.6bn Muslims in the world. What are you planning to do, build a wall and hide from them?
Before Islamic terrorists planted their first bomb in Britain, the IRA spent years doing the same. Would it have been fair for the UK to ban all Irish people from entering? How about Irish Americans? Would you expect the US government to happily agree to that?
As for those people collecting benefits, if you want to disqualify them from being British for that, there will be a whole lot of natives and non-Muslims going with them. Why do you think they won't go outside their enclaves anyway? Might those locals who don't trust them have something to do with it? The more each side distrusts the other the worse things will get.
About the retirees living abroad, I said she should stand up for them, not that she actually had. But if you can pick one group and say they are not real citizens and don't deserve protection, why not another? There's a famous quote about that from a guy who spent 7 years in a concentration camp.
@ DT
Nov 20th, 2016 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Carry on!
The quote?
Nov 20th, 2016 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -1First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
-Martin Niemöller
Obviously he was talking about a much more serious situation, but the principle is the same. A right is only a right if it applies to everyone.
@ DT
Nov 21st, 2016 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, the famous anti-Nazi quote, I would have gotten that.
Chris:
Nov 21st, 2016 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't confuse England with what it is for what it once was.
London has more foreign borns than domestic born.
The culture identity of the UK is permanently shredded.
This isn't unique.
Groups have been committing cultural, genetic and state suicide for decades.
Germany embraces this as a national goal.
Much of the world espouses absolute universal migration as a right superceding that of national sovereignty and border integrity.
@ Chronic
Nov 21st, 2016 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Shush!
They will be calling us racists.
@ chronic
Nov 21st, 2016 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“Much of the world espouses absolute universal migration as a right superceding that of national sovereignty and border integrity.”
Really? Where are these countries who just let in anyone who asks? All the ones I have been to have been pretty damn strict about who they allow in. Visas, border controls, the whole shebang. The majority of the world is quite keen on enforcing their borders, and on maintaining their national sovereignty too.
One of the most generous countries for immigration is your own, the USA, and they may have been the only one that did once let in nearly anyone. Are you so unhappy with how it turned out?
However, you are right about one thing. Britain is not the same as it was, and the world is not the same as it was. But no one can turn back time. This is the world we have to live in, and I intend to live my life the best I can, not sit around pining for a past I never even knew.
@ ChrisR
That shoe fitting a little too comfortably, hey?
Monkey:
Nov 21st, 2016 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There you go again.
lol.
Pure Saul Alinsky.
Weak effort.
lol.
The rate increase “relatively soon”! Is “RELATIVELY” after two months? after two years? after the second coming of Christ?
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2@ DT
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think there is a quote that will come back in fashion and in reality.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”
If this doesn't come back in actuality then the 'gentle' people will be annihilated: and deservedly so. I am used to making sure my wife and I are kept out of harms way.
@ ChrisR
Nov 23rd, 2016 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Violence is not reserved for the 'rough'; I would not describe our army that way. But I agree laws need to be enforced, and countries need to protect themselves, and this does require violence. And the more effectively this is done by the state, the less need for individuals to do the job themselves and the better things will be.
But for this to work, people need to trust that laws will be applied fairly, and the state will not abuse its power. Otherwise they will decide that indeed they need to protect themselves, resulting - if it is serious enough - in the breakdown of society.
As for wars, I think some are justified, but not all. For example the Iraq war was not IMO, and I don't sleep safer for it either; it's quite the reverse!
@ DT
Nov 24th, 2016 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is true, as told to me by my best friend, a Uruguayo.
A young family came to live in a two storied secluded house on the outside of town. They bought the place from the owner basically on a handshake, no escribana involved. Everything was OK until property in the area went up dramatically and the seller told them to leave, he had a buyer! They had no title deeds and the man and woman fell out big-time, the man leaving the woman with their two small children.
The 'seller' then told the woman to leave 'or else'. She didn't, he threatened to kill her and the kids, eventually repeating the threat in front of independent witnesses. The woman was frightened for their lives and went to the policia who checked everything out and went to see the 'seller'.
They came back and immediately issued her with a S&W 0.38 Special revolver, some ammunition and time on the range learning gun safety and handling. They also told her the law about self-defense and what she should do if this character came to the house and attempted violence.
Sure enough, one dark night, he came to the house armed with a knife and a meat cleaner and started shouting that she and her children were going to die. As she was 'phoning the policia the man broke the back door down and she rushed to get the revolver and confronted him, he raised the meat cleaver and she put three shots into his sternum (0.38 Sp is a useless round) and he went down onto his knees and then fell flat on his face. He was still there when the policia came.
They checked the 'crime' scene, listened to her statement, sent for an ambulance for her (she was a 'bit' upset to say the least) and that was it.
The thing that people in a first world 'civilised' society seem to think is that the police are there to 'safeguard' them. It's not true because it is impossible to put a policeman in every location, even in the US, hence the firearms.
The mom and kids are still in the house, she is a friend of my best friend.
@ ChrisR
Nov 26th, 2016 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The police do exist to safeguard us, isn't that the point of your quote above? Obviously it is impossible to put a policeman in every location, and they can never prevent every crime, but in Britain they are within call, and they also serve to deter criminals by making sure there are consequences for their actions.
In the US, where people believe they need to protect themselves, the murder rate is vastly higher than in Europe where people generally leave the job to the police. I think this goes two ways, as the higher crime rate causes people to lose trust in the police, but people trying to defend themselves makes society more dangerous for everyone, with the result that even more people get killed and the problem gets worse.
Why couldn't your police in Uruguay go and tell that man that if the woman and her children turned up dead, he would be arrested the same day? Are people so likely to get away with crimes even when they are obviously guilty?
I don't blame the woman at all, what she did sounds perfectly reasonable in the circumstances, but it would be much better if the whole thing could have been prevented.
@ DT
Nov 26th, 2016 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It must be so lovely in that world you inhabit.
”Why couldn't your police in Uruguay go and tell that man that if the woman and her children turned up dead, he would be arrested the same day?
What a stupid comment! So she is expected to die so the policia have an arrestable crime and he goes to jail for 8 years. Did you think anything through before you made that comment?
OR did you not believe the cretin would actually kill them?
Don't ever live anywhere in SA, you wouldn't last 10 minutes. But at least the policia would arrest those that did it, maybe.
Are people so likely to get away with crimes even when they are obviously guilty?
@ ChrisR
Nov 27th, 2016 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0I expect the guy to reconsider whether it is worth going to jail for 8 years (surely he'd get longer in that circumstance?) just to sell a house and get more money. People are generally only willing to commit that kind of crime for gain if they think they will get away with it.
If he had been, say, an obsessed stalker, I would not have said the same thing, since such people often do not behave rationally.
But you will surely not deny that better enforcement by the police results in less crime? And that this is preferable to having people defend themselves with all the risks that entails, or worse, trying to administer their own 'justice' and starting feuds?
What I would like to know is why all the countries in the new world seem to have such high murder rates compared to even poor countries in the old world.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!