Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-15-2007, 10:45 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
5,299 posts, read 8,253,049 times
Reputation: 3809

Advertisements

I'm of the opinion that Greenspan, like Colin Powell, is attempting to burnish his reputation with the book. That said, we need a fiscal conservative like Clinton in the White House again to get the country back on the right track. Good news for Hillary.

Clips:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...402451_pf.html

Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades, levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.

While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan's 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.

Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage."

But he expresses deep disappointment with Bush. "My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "Not exercising the veto power became a hallmark of the Bush presidency. . . . To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."

Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."

...

Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticizes his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice President Cheney. Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Greenspan says, " 'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin became part of the Republicans' rhetoric."

He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic devastation."

When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

...
However, he calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in facts," and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. "Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world. . . . I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye for the big picture too."

During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told the president. "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."

Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."

Greenspan interviewed Clinton for the book and clearly admires him. "President Clinton's old-fashioned attitude toward debt might have had a more lasting effect on the nation's priorities. Instead, his influence was diluted by the uproar about Monica Lewinsky."
...
Known for his restrained if not incomprehensible public statements over the past several decades, Greenspan's direct criticism of Bush and his economic policies comes as the economy is emerging as an issue in the 2008 presidential race. And the man Greenspan praises so highly for fiscal probity is married to the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
...
Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2007, 11:25 AM
 
2,260 posts, read 3,880,656 times
Reputation: 475
The free flow of oil out of the ME is a grave security concern for our country. It was US investors that first punched the holes in Arabia initially developing the fields that make the ME the worlds gas station today. Millions of Americans stock portfolios have Exxon/esso/Texaco as their cornerstones,these investors pay high taxes to ensure their intests abroad are protected.

While I agree that Bush is a fiscal moron to claim Clintons plan to bail out SS was anything more than an accounting sham is a lie
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2007, 11:39 AM
 
Location: NC
1,251 posts, read 2,577,069 times
Reputation: 588
I agree Its funny how Clinton is held up as a fiscal conservitive. I thought Clinton was the one who had the higest tax increase in history. Funny how history is trying to be re written. Atleast Bill listened to AG unlike Dumya.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2007, 11:50 AM
 
1,408 posts, read 4,861,559 times
Reputation: 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
a fiscal conservative like Clinton in the White House
Huh?! Clinton, conservative?

That last true fiscal conservative in the White House was Reagan—and he unfortunately had to deal with a Democratic Congress that spent money like a bunch of drunk Paris Hiltons!

Before Reagan, last true fiscally conservative president we had was Coolidge.

Two fiscal conservatives in the past 90 years. Any wonder why the federal government is so vastly bloated, laughably inefficient, and outrageously costly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2007, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
5,299 posts, read 8,253,049 times
Reputation: 3809
Quote:
Originally Posted by LancasterNative View Post
Huh?! Clinton, conservative?

:
Compared to bush, Clinton is a fiscal conservative.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2007, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
5,299 posts, read 8,253,049 times
Reputation: 3809
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryan61 View Post
The free flow of oil out of the ME is a grave security concern for our country. It was US investors that first punched the holes in Arabia initially developing the fields that make the ME the worlds gas station today. Millions of Americans stock portfolios have Exxon/esso/Texaco as their cornerstones,these investors pay high taxes to ensure their intests abroad are protected.
As if Iraq needed to be destabilized any further, the oil companies are now dealing directly with Kurdistan bypassing the central government. Unification of Iraq is a pipe dream. It is a shame so many of our young have to die for in order to protect stock portfolios.

What I don't like is Greenspan's justification for the tax breaks for the rich. I believe at the time he went along with it and now he tries to put the blame on congress. O'Neill had it right and he was shown the door. I do plan on reading Greenspan's book.

Last edited by tigerlily; 09-15-2007 at 12:07 PM.. Reason: addition
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2007, 12:38 PM
 
1,408 posts, read 4,861,559 times
Reputation: 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by tigerlily View Post
Compared to bush, Clinton is a fiscal conservative.
Unfortunately, you're right about that.

Voting for Bush twice, thinking he would be more conservative on spending, I feel I've been "had"!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top