I'm shocked to learn that Bush and Greespan are to Blame for economic crisis

[Cypress]

No one could have predicted that cutting taxes primarily for the wealthy, fighting a multi-trillion dollar war in Iraq, and blind disregard for any kind of oversight or regulation of bad debt and shady loan practices, would result in this....

Well, maybe Al Gore predicted it. But his "fuzzy math" thesis was laughed off by wingnutotopia.

Greenspan, Bush to blame for U.S. economic crisis: Former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Laureate

REUTERS

Apr 27, 2008 05:48 EST

VIENNA (Reuters) - Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and the government of President George W. Bush were to blame for the U.S. financial crisis, Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz said in a magazine interview.

"This man (Greenspan) has unfortunately made a lot of mistakes," said former World Bank chief economist Stiglitz, according to a preview of the interview to be published on Monday in profil magazine.

"His first one was to support all the tax cuts which were introduced under Bush -- they didn't stimulate the economy very much ... This task was then transferred more towards monetary policy, though then (Greenspan) created a flood of credits with low interest rates," Stiglitz was quoted as saying.

Earlier in April, Greenspan said in an interview with CNBC television that the U.S. economy was in recession and defended his chairmanship of the U.S. central bank against charges that his policy missteps had laid the groundwork for the crisis.

He said decisions during his charge had been rationally constructed based on evidence at the time.

Stiglitz said Bush's government was also to blame.

"I reproach them, that the economy was not as resilient as it could have been due to the ongoing tax cuts and the huge costs incurred by the war in Iraq," he was quoted as saying.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...h_to_blame_for_crisis/articleshow/2988968.cms

Fess up Bush voters. You screwed the pooch.

 

[uscitizen]

but Bush wasn't a conservative.
At least they did not vote for Gore/Kerry.

 

[tinfoil]

not a single word explaining how consumers and business owners (the wealthy)would have provided better economic numbers with less money to spend. Would you care to explain how your theory works. Conventional wisdom would suggest having less disposable income would result in a tightening of spending by consumers.

BTW Greenspan killed the economy during the Clinton years by raisning the rates too far and waiting too long to lower them. When he was forced to confront his failure he had to lower them to all time lows in a last ditch effort. You can blame Bush if you want, but it's apparent you have very little understanding of economics if you really believe it's Bush's fault because he lowered taxes.

LOL

 

[uscitizen]

Tinfoil, argue it with the Former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Laureate who said it.

 

[Diuretic]

Frog...boiling water.

 

[Obfuscate]

It's funny hearing liberals and liberal economists talk about interest rates being TOO LOW. LOFL. Shit maybe liberals are now inflation hawks...LOL

 

[Topspin]

if democrats lose which I don't think they will, it will be the shear cluelessness on economics. McKeating5 kinda negates that weakness, but he can parrot tax cuts.

 

[Obfuscate]

Greenspan also made alot of good moves. He presided over the greatest economic boom and advance in real living standards in the history of man. What good has Stiglitz and the world bank done?

 

[Topspin]

the world bank is a joke
turbo-libs will flame you for bringing up the blasphamey of wealth creation.

 

[Damocles]

Tinfoil, argue it with the Former World Bank Chief Economist and Nobel Laureate who said it.

So are you saying that if I find more PhDs that say something different you'll believe them?

It is my opinion that no matter who says differently you will go with the guy with whom you agree, it seems to be the regular pattern of every human that has an opinion.

 

[Cypress]

So are you saying that if I find more PhDs that say something different you'll believe them?

It is my opinion that no matter who says differently you will go with the guy with whom you agree, it seems to be the regular pattern of every human that has an opinion.

I don't believe Stiglitz because he has a PhD and is former chief economist of the world bank.

I believe him because, time after time after time, he's been right.

He was predicting years ago that Bush's war would cost into the trillions - while Bush's sychophants were assuring us that the war could be fought on the cheap. Stiglitz predicted years ago that bush's tax cuts and economic policies were going to drag us into a sea of debt, and create lasting damage to the economy - while Bush sycophants were telling us the economy was great and bush's policies were responsible.

 

[Topspin]

this is funny shit that's cypress

 

[uscitizen]

So are you saying that if I find more PhDs that say something different you'll believe them?

It is my opinion that no matter who says differently you will go with the guy with whom you agree, it seems to be the regular pattern of every human that has an opinion.

Nope as usual you spun things around. What I was saying is take it up with the originator of the article, who is an "expert" vs slamming the one who posts the article on here for information and discussion.

 

[Damocles]

Nope as usual you spun things around. What I was saying is take it up with the originator of the article, who is an "expert" vs slamming the one who posts the article on here for information and discussion.

The article was placed here for discussion. That person discussed it. You then said that they could not discuss it because they weren't the originator of the article.

However, you assumed what I wrote was a "dig" at you. Re-read it.

It is my experience that whomever has an opinion will believe the PhD that most reflects what they already believe.

 

[Damocles]

I don't believe Stiglitz because he has a PhD and is former chief economist of the world bank.

I believe him because, time after time after time, he's been right.

He was predicting years ago that Bush's war would cost into the trillions - while Bush's sychophants were assuring us that the war could be fought on the cheap. Stiglitz predicted years ago that bush's tax cuts and economic policies were going to drag us into a sea of debt, and create lasting damage to the economy - while Bush sycophants were telling us the economy was great and bush's policies were responsible.

I wasn't talking to you.

And his being "right" here is a matter of opinion, not of certainty.

 

[uscitizen]

The article was placed here for discussion. That person discussed it. You then said that they could not discuss it because they weren't the originator of the article.

However, you assumed what I wrote was a "dig" at you. Re-read it.

It is my experience that whomever has an opinion will believe the PhD that most reflects what they already believe.

I was replying to Tinfoil who said the following:
"You can blame Bush if you want, but it's apparent you have very little understanding of economics if you really believe it's Bush's fault because he lowered taxes."

 

[Damocles]

I was replying to Tinfoil who said the following:
"You can blame Bush if you want, but it's apparent you have very little understanding of economics if you really believe it's Bush's fault because he lowered taxes."

Previous to that he gave reasons why he would think that. Taking it out of context and feeling all "hurty" and crying about it doesn't change that you said, "This guy has PhDs and therefore is right" back, nor does it change my remark.

It is my personal experience that each person will believe the PhD that agrees with what they already have decided on.

Basically I was saying, getting into the battle of the PhD won't change anybody's opinion...

 

[uscitizen]

I can understand that perception Damo, considering it is coming from a mostly partisan source.
You are pretty much describing partisanship. And for the most part you are correct.
I am not the most part.

 

[Damocles]

I can understand that perception Damo, considering it is coming from a mostly partisan source.
You are pretty much describing partisanship. And for the most part you are correct.
I am not the most part.

It has nothing to do with "partisanship" it has to do with opinions, which you most certainly have whether or not you recognize your own "partisanship".

That you took it personally has to do with me quoting your post, it was however a general statement of humanity. Human beings regularly accept the opinion of "scholars" that agree with their already decided positions.