Preach on Brother Greenspan

cawacko

Well-known member
"""Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." """

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
 
Dr Ben will take care of everything, take two quarter cuts and call me in a week when the market is up.
 
Yeah, let's see if we can blow another bubble. Treat the symptoms rather than the illness. Sooner or later the body becomes immune to these "cures."
 
Greenspan absolutely slams Bush in this book, and his complete lack of curiosity about the consequences of fiscal policy. He said Clinton was the opposite.

It's like in 2000, Americans tried to figure out who would f**k the country up in every way possible, and decided to go w/ that guy....
 
Greenspan absolutely slams Bush in this book, and his complete lack of curiosity about the consequences of fiscal policy. He said Clinton was the opposite.

It's like in 2000, Americans tried to figure out who would f**k the country up in every way possible, and decided to go w/ that guy....

As Bush should be bashed. He did not veto one spending bill and allow government spending to spiral out of control during his first six years in office. That's unacceptable and Greenspan rightfully calls him out.
 
"""Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose." """

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news


Bush and his supporters told us in 2000, that we could afford tax cuts for the rich, a medicare pill bill, and NCLB. Without going into debt, and still being able to pay down the national debt.

Al Gore said that bush's math didn't add up. Fuzzy math. I still remember Bush supporters laughing at Gore for that.

I guess Gore was right. Gore was right on Iraq. Gore was right on climate change. Damn...was that dude EVER wrong, on anything important? ;)
 
Yes..............

Bush and his supporters told us in 2000, that we could afford tax cuts for the rich, a medicare pill bill, and NCLB. Without going into debt, and still being able to pay down the national debt.

Al Gore said that bush's math didn't add up. Fuzzy math. I still remember Bush supporters laughing at Gore for that.

I guess Gore was right. Gore was right on Iraq. Gore was right on climate change. Damn...was that dude EVER wrong, on anything important? ;)




On all the above dribble..plus his 'Inventing the Internet'....:rolleyes:
 
the dems were wrong on the tax cuts throwing the economy in a downward spiral. We had the greatest creation of wealth ever.
they were right on spending , doubt they will do any better with special interest.
 
As Bush should be bashed. He did not veto one spending bill and allow government spending to spiral out of control during his first six years in office. That's unacceptable and Greenspan rightfully calls him out.

Ohhhh. Greenspan is one of them "legitimate critics" I hear about.
 
Let's see what one of them illegitimate critics - that's one of them critters who were mouthing off right from the start, ie; when it was unpop-u-lar to do so - has to say about brother greenspan's late in the day big talking.

New York - "Some guy" - "When President Bush first took office, it seemed unlikely that he would succeed in getting his proposed tax cuts enacted. The questionable nature of his installation in the White House seemed to leave him in a weak political position, while the Senate was evenly balanced between the parties. It was hard to see how a huge, controversial tax cut, which delivered most of its benefits to a wealthy elite, could get through Congress.

Then Alan Greenspan, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before the Senate Budget Committee.

Until then Mr. Greenspan had presented himself as the voice of fiscal responsibility, warning the Clinton administration not to endanger its hard-won budget surpluses. But now Republicans held the White House, and the Greenspan who appeared before the Budget Committee was a very different man.

Suddenly, his greatest concern — the “emerging key fiscal policy need,” he told Congress — was to avert the threat that the federal government might actually pay off all its debt. To avoid this awful outcome, he advocated tax cuts. And the floodgates were opened.

As it turns out, Mr. Greenspan’s fears that the federal government would quickly pay off its debt were, shall we say, exaggerated. And Mr. Greenspan has just published a book in which he castigates the Bush administration for its fiscal irresponsibility.

Well, I’m sorry, but that criticism comes six years late and a trillion dollars short.

Mr. Greenspan now says that he didn’t mean to give the Bush tax cuts a green light, and that he was surprised at the political reaction to his remarks. There were, indeed, rumors at the time — which Mr. Greenspan now says were true — that the Fed chairman was upset about the response to his initial statement.

But the fact is that if Mr. Greenspan wasn’t intending to lend crucial support to the Bush tax cuts, he had ample opportunity to set the record straight when it could have made a difference.

His first big chance to clarify himself came a few weeks after that initial testimony, when he appeared before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs.

Here’s what I wrote following that appearance: “Mr. Greenspan’s performance yesterday, in his first official testimony since he let the genie out of the bottle, was a profile in cowardice. Again and again he was offered the opportunity to say something that would help rein in runaway tax-cutting; each time he evaded the question, often replying by reading from his own previous testimony. He declared once again that he was speaking only for himself, thus granting himself leeway to pronounce on subjects far afield of his role as Federal Reserve chairman. But when pressed on the crucial question of whether the huge tax cuts that now seem inevitable are too large, he said it was inappropriate for him to comment on particular proposals.

“In short, Mr. Greenspan defined the rules of the game in a way that allows him to intervene as he likes in the political debate, but to retreat behind the veil of his office whenever anyone tries to hold him accountable for the results of those interventions.”

I received an irate phone call from Mr. Greenspan after that article, in which he demanded to know what he had said that was wrong. In his book, he claims that Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, was stumped by that question. That’s hard to believe, because I certainly wasn’t: Mr. Greenspan’s argument for tax cuts was contorted and in places self-contradictory, not to mention based on budget projections that everyone knew, even then, were wildly overoptimistic.

If anyone had doubts about Mr. Greenspan’s determination not to inconvenience the Bush administration, those doubts were resolved two years later, when the administration proposed another round of tax cuts, even though the budget was now deep in deficit. And guess what? The former high priest of fiscal responsibility did not object.

And in 2004 he expressed support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent — remember, these are the tax cuts he now says he didn’t endorse — and argued that the budget should be balanced with cuts in entitlement spending, including Social Security benefits, instead. Of course, back in 2001 he specifically assured Congress that cutting taxes would not threaten Social Security.

In retrospect, Mr. Greenspan’s moral collapse in 2001 was a portent. It foreshadowed the way many people in the foreign policy community would put their critical faculties on hold and support the invasion of Iraq, despite ample evidence that it was a really bad idea.

And like enthusiastic war supporters who have started describing themselves as war critics now that the Iraq venture has gone wrong, Mr. Greenspan has started portraying himself as a critic of administration fiscal irresponsibility now that President Bush has become deeply unpopular and Democrats control Congress."
http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/2007/09/paul-krugman-sad-alans-lament.html
 
I heard his interview (on 60 minutes I think) last night and the interviewer was kind of being a pr!ck, but I thought he was pretty frank. He basically confirmed what we knew and that was that Clinton was the smartest he work with but he said he traditionally votes republican when asked whether or not he'd vote for Hillary.
 
I heard his interview (on 60 minutes I think) last night and the interviewer was kind of being a pr!ck, but I thought he was pretty frank. He basically confirmed what we knew and that was that Clinton was the smartest he work with but he said he traditionally votes republican when asked whether or not he'd vote for Hillary.

Many "libertarian" leaning republicans can be counted on to reliably vote Republican no matter how stupid, incompetent, or even corrupt the candidate they put up is.
 
That was a good interview, even though Lesley Stahl (who drives me bananas) was doing it.

It's good to have a guy like Greenspan come out with all of this stuff that we already know (Clinton much smarter than Bush, Bush/Cheney reckless w/ fiscal policy, Iraq about oil), because he's someone people listen to (unlike, say, Michael Moore...)
 
That was a good interview, even though Lesley Stahl (who drives me bananas) was doing it.

It's good to have a guy like Greenspan come out with all of this stuff that we already know (Clinton much smarter than Bush, Bush/Cheney reckless w/ fiscal policy, Iraq about oil), because he's someone people listen to (unlike, say, Michael Moore...)

Maybe so, but it take zero courage to come out now.

And he knew long before now.
 
Back
Top