Greenspan praises Clinton

[Alonzo]

These comments seem to have been ignored in favor of his "war for oil" comments:

In The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he is also crystal clear on his opinion of his last two bosses, harshly criticising George W Bush for 'abandoning fiscal constraint' and praising Bill Clinton's anti-deficit policies during the Nineties as 'an act of political courage'. He also speaks of Clinton's sharp and 'curious' mind, and 'old-fashioned' caution about the dangers of debt.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2170237,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

But when Greenspan asserts that Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton were "by far" the smartest Presidents he worked with, those two little words say quite a lot about Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and a couple of guys named Bush.

Surprisingly for a self-described "lifelong Republican," GreenÂ*span was happiest as Fed chairman when Clinton was in the White House. (He also liked his time running Ford's Council of Economic Advisors, where it was his pleasant responsibility "to shoot down harebrained fiscal policy schemes.")

With the first George Bush, Greenspan had what he calls a "terrible relationship."

He faults the administration of Bush II for a Â*decision-making process driven entirely by political calculation.

By comparison, he found the Democratic interregnum sandwiched between two slices of Bush a version of Periclean Athens, where dedicated men (Bob Rubin, Larry Summers, Clinton, himself) made decisions in the nation's long-term interest.

Give the man credit: He helped persuade a Democratic President to base his economic policy on a balanced budget. "If the story of the past quarter of a century has a one-line plot summary," Greenspan writes, "it is the rediscovery of the power of market capitalism."

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/15/magazines/fortune/greenspan_book.fortune/?postversion=2007091512

[Elrathin]

Economically I think Clinton is one of the best presidents that we have ever seen, if not the best. His foreign policy I had many problems with.

[April15]

Greenspan is stating opinions. I don't think he was praising Clinton.

[ViolaLee]

Greenspan is an economist. He loves a balanced budget. Clinton had one, with pay as you go. Clinton had a surplus. Clinton was our best fiscally responsible President in our lifetimes. Dubya is the worst. Dubya wants our children and grandchildren to pay our debt for us.

[Oedipus Rex]

Clinton's butt must really be sore with all the kissing going on.


Just keep in mind... Congress controls the purse strings.

[tony mitra]

The Federal Reerve's Open Market Committee meets tomorrow, and its topic of discussion, what to do if anything about the interest rate, is going to be anything but cut and dry.

The current Fed Chairman, Mr. Bernanke, has recently explained away the current fiscal problems straight forwardly - blaming "global savings glut" for just about everything. The rise of excess savings in Japan, China, India, and also the Middle East in the past so many years, and their frugal habit of not spending all of it away immediately, made them exporters of capital, and a large chunk of it ended up back in the US.

Mr. Bernanke argues that this inflow of excess cash propelled all the maladies like the current account deficit and the housing bubble as well as the reason why the interest rates were so low earlier in this decade. In short, it is not the fault of the Fed or the American economic policy, it is the fault of frugal foreigners!

Meanwhile, Mr. Greenspan is busy lambasting the Bush Presidency for fiscal irresponsibility while praising Clinton and Nixon for being smart.

None of them want to admit that this "glut" was first of all created by the Fed, then under the famous Mr. Greenspan himself, when he lowered US interst rates to absurd levels and printed more easy money to offset the so called dotcom bust. Every time the economy coughs, you print easy money and toss it away at near zero interest loans, and then blame the Chinese for the glut!

Mr. Greenspan, enjoying a six figure speaking circuit and a memoir in the wings - "The Age of Turbulence" is hogging the headlines with his criticism of the Bush Presidency.

Hahh.

The Fed now has a very serious problem. If they do not lower interest rate, some things will get worse. If they do lower the interst rate, other things will get worse. Now they have to juggle and guess which ones will get less worse than the other, if the Fed lower or not lower or raise the interest rate. Whatever they do, something or other will get worse, nothing will get better, and they will likely end up being questioned about it. And Mr. Bernanke is not even mentioning the dilemma, as if everything is under control, and cool.

Incidentally, out of curiosity, I had walked out of my office to the corner Canadian bullion store to purchase a few 99.9999 percent certified pure Canadian gold ounce coins, just to see how it works. It works fine. Canada is among the largest gold producers and the cost last week was 660 US dollars per ounce. In a few days, it has shot past 700, and there are talks that it might go above a thousand in a year, primarily because India, the largest gold buyer in the world, might increase their annual purchase and buy as much as a thousand tons of it this year alone, all of it bypassing pouring additional dollars into the US glut.

Gees - and Mr. Bernanke blames the "glut" as the fault of the frugal Chinese dumping their reserve on poor old USA!

I do not see any US presidential aspirant speak is a clear and cohesive manner on how they can hope to fix the fiscal problem, except perhaps Mr. Ron Paul in one way and Mr. Kucinich in another way. These two gentlemen, no matter what other others think about them, are by no means stupid. And they are also not crooked and can call a spade a spade. But the rest - well, I shall reserve my comments.

Intersting developments everywhere, and a good thread. And interesting of Mr. Greenspan spinning some green on his talk shows. There is another name for this game - it's called passing the buck.

Cheers.

[ViolaLee]

Clinton's butt must really be sore with all the kissing going on.


Just keep in mind... Congress controls the purse strings.


That argument (or defense) would make sense if Bush didn't have a Republican congress for 6 years while he racked up all this debt. Clinton had a Republican congress too. Did they suddenly change into spending madmen, or does the President's policies have something to do with the debt?

Pay as you go was Clinton's strategy. Spend more than we have and spend it wildly is Bush's strategy.

It's not hard to figure out why one had a balanced budget and the other did not.

[Oedipus Rex]

Clinton's butt must really be sore with all the kissing going on.


Just keep in mind... Congress controls the purse strings.


That argument (or defense) would make sense if Bush didn't have a Republican congress for 6 years while he racked up all this debt. Clinton had a Republican congress too. Did they suddenly change into spending madmen, or does the President's policies have something to do with the debt?

Pay as you go was Clinton's strategy. Spend more than we have and spend it wildly is Bush's strategy.

It's not hard to figure out why one had a balanced budget and the other did not.




I just love the spin. The bottom line is that Congress controls the purse strings. Its their policies, in conjunction with the Federal Reserve, that makes or breaks our economy. The role of the President is minimal at best. But don't let that stop you guys from piling on the Clinton bandwagon. Perception IS reality.

[Truth_and_Power]

Yeah congress controls the ability to make war as well.. we all see how little influence the president has had over that. The president sets the agenda and congress implements it. That's how it works, not that I'm a particular fan of it.

[Oedipus Rex]

Yeah congress controls the ability to make war as well.. we all see how little influence the president has had over that. The president sets the agenda and congress implements it. That's how it works, not that I'm a particular fan of it.





Again, let's be honest... no spin. Congress has the power to declare war and to fund war. The President can initiate hostilities for up to 100 days. After that, Congress must fund the action or the President has to withdraw.

Tell me... has the war in Iraq gone past 100 days yet?:ponder:

[Marley]

uh, simple question here folks:

Why did Clinton shut down the government in 1995?

Hint: he vetoed something, what? why?

Thanks!

[ViolaLee]

uh, simple question here folks:

Why did Clinton shut down the government in 1995?

Hint: he vetoed something, what? why?

Thanks!
What does that have to do with Clinton's balanced budget and surplus? The things Greenspan praises Clinton for?

[preservanation]

I have a feeling all of this is nonsense and a lie to prop up Clinton.
I'm done taking the lib medias' word for anything any more.
I'm going to have to read it all in context before I believe ANY of this.
Sorry, once bitten, twice shy.

[Marley]

Hey Viola if you can't field a simple question that's your problem, I can't figure out why you posted, it's not a reply!

What does that have to do with Clinton's balanced budget and surplus?

YOUR very FIRST post to this thread Viola!

LMAO

So in response TO YOU Viola:

Why did Clinton shut down the government in 1995?

Hint: he vetoed something, what? why?

Thanks!

[heyjude]

I have this funny memory of Newt Gingrich and the other neo-cons out on the steps of Congress, gloating that they had shut down the federal government. They said it was the best thing they had ever done. They were strutting and smirking. How did that become Clinton's fault. It was a Republican job from start to finish.

[Truth_and_Power]

Hey Viola if you can't field a simple question that's your problem, I can't figure out why you posted, it's not a reply!

What does that have to do with Clinton's balanced budget and surplus?

YOUR very FIRST post to this thread Viola!

LMAO

So in response TO YOU Viola:

Why did Clinton shut down the government in 1995?

Hint: he vetoed something, what? why?

Thanks!


Hey emale, maybe you should just offer facts and make a point instead of insulting your audience with rhetorical questions. This is not a 3rd grade sunday school class.

[preservanation]

Stahl asked what he thought of Hillary.

"Very smart. She and I got along reasonably well," Greenspan says.

Asked if he thinks she can handle the presidency, Greenspan says, "Certainly. I think she's unquestionably capable. The question is she the best person for the job?"

"And?" Stahl asks.

"My tendency would be to vote Republican," Greenspan says. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/60minutes/main3257567_page4.shtml
Ha, I knew it!!!
Whata crock!

[Buck Laser]

uh, simple question here folks:

Why did Clinton shut down the government in 1995?

Hint: he vetoed something, what? why?

Thanks!

Simple answer here, too. Congress kept refusing to fund essential programs, led by Gingrich the Newt. The gummint did shut down, but once Newt realzed that he couldn't prevail, they passed an adequate funding bill. And Clinton was the first president in ages to wind up with a budgetary surplus. Really tough to face those facts, ain't it?:shock:

[Deadshot]

Stahl asked what he thought of Hillary.

"Very smart. She and I got along reasonably well," Greenspan says.

Asked if he thinks she can handle the presidency, Greenspan says, "Certainly. I think she's unquestionably capable. The question is she the best person for the job?"

"And?" Stahl asks.

"My tendency would be to vote Republican," Greenspan says. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/60minutes/main3257567_page4.shtml
Ha, I knew it!!!
Whata crock!


Which Republican? :madlaugh: It's so funny how many Republicans think. They can easily shoot down Hillary, or Obama or Edwards. They find so many chinks in armour of their opponents, but where is your knight in shining armour?

Seriously, you guys are like the person who says "I don't want hamburgers for lunch, I don't want Mexican, I don't want Chinese..." and the rest of us say "Well, WHAT DO YOU WANT!!!" and your response is "I don't know...I just know I'm hungry." :unreal:

Greenspan may vote Republican. But right now even he has doubts about the party and has found NO ONE to endorse.

Pres, you're more fixated upon him not endorsing Hillary then his message that the GOP is broken and that Bush helped to break it. So Greenspan will vote for Ron Paul and endorse the candidate that will probably run third party, but stay with Republican values. Whereas the GOP will stand by a loser who Greenspan won't even speak as well about them as he does Hillary....and you're happy about that...

[preservanation]

I have this funny memory of Newt Gingrich and the other neo-cons out on the steps of Congress, gloating that they had shut down the federal government. They said it was the best thing they had ever done. They were strutting and smirking. How did that become Clinton's fault. It was a Republican job from start to finish.
Unlike you I have a party when the gov shuts down.
It means they stop taking my money and rights away, even if it is just for a little while.

[heyjude]

I have read that conservatives are very impressed with the things Clinton is saying. I'm not surprised. Her husband was the best president the old style Republicans ever had. Now the neo-cons are another problem, but I think they have toileted.

[preservanation]

Stahl asked what he thought of Hillary.

"Very smart. She and I got along reasonably well," Greenspan says.

Asked if he thinks she can handle the presidency, Greenspan says, "Certainly. I think she's unquestionably capable. The question is she the best person for the job?"

"And?" Stahl asks.

"My tendency would be to vote Republican," Greenspan says. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/13/60minutes/main3257567_page4.shtml
Ha, I knew it!!!
Whata crock!


Which Republican? :madlaugh: It's so funny how many Republicans think. They can easily shoot down Hillary, or Obama or Edwards. They find so many chinks in armour of their opponents, but where is your knight in shining armour?

Seriously, you guys are like the person who says "I don't want hamburgers for lunch, I don't want Mexican, I don't want Chinese..." and the rest of us say "Well, WHAT DO YOU WANT!!!" and your response is "I don't know...I just know I'm hungry." :unreal:

Greenspan may vote Republican. But right now even he has doubts about the party and has found NO ONE to endorse.

Pres, you're more fixated upon him not endorsing Hillary then his message that the GOP is broken and that Bush helped to break it. So Greenspan will vote for Ron Paul and endorse the candidate that will probably run third party, but stay with Republican values. Whereas the GOP will stand by a loser who Greenspan won't even speak as well about them as he does Hillary....and you're happy about that...
Don't worry, Hillary will try to convince America that she is a Republican if she thinks it will get her votes.

[heyjude]

Not pointing any fingers, you know who you are. "Hillary, Obama, Edwards is SEXIST! Either call them all by their first names or all by their last names. As a woman I am tired of being denigerated by the media and posters.

[Deadshot]

Don't worry, Hillary will try to convince America that she is a Republican if she thinks it will get her votes.
[/quote]

...and if she wins, who's side will she take? :ecstatic:

[preservanation]

Don't worry, Hillary will try to convince America that she is a Republican if she thinks it will get her votes.


...and if she wins, who's side will she take? :ecstatic:
[/quote]
HER'S!!!:dork:

[Marley]

Congress kept refusing to fund

Nope, sorry, that's pure fantasy!

Newt et al passed appropriations, Newt did not shut down government.

It is impossible for congress to both pass appropriations and shut down government -- impossible!

I'm sick of liberals lying. When I see them lying, I ask simple questions where they have to either scurry off and hide or lie more.

Right Buck?

[Deadshot]

Don't worry, Hillary will try to convince America that she is a Republican if she thinks it will get her votes.


...and if she wins, who's side will she take? :ecstatic:

HER'S!!!:dork:
[/quote]

Which will be Democraticly Democrats!:ecstatic:

[Buck Laser]

Congress kept refusing to fund

Nope, sorry, that's pure fantasy!

Newt et al passed appropriations, Newt did not shut down government.

It is impossible for congress to both pass appropriations and shut down government -- impossible!

I'm sick of liberals lying. When I see them lying, I ask simple questions where they have to either scurry off and hide or lie more.

Right Buck?

So have you got reliable citations for your point of view? You made the allegations about Clinton shutting down the gummint, so it's up to you to provide evidence. Personally, I doubt that you can do it.

HOWEVER, just pointing out that it was the Executive Branch that shut down won't do it, because the President was legally obligated to do that if the Congress didn't pass the appropriations bill. I think we'll see who's lying.

[preservanation]

Democraticly Democratics!
Get it right DS!:shame:

[Marley]

The most recent shutdowns occurred in FY1996. There were two during the earlypart of the fiscal year. The first, November 14-19, 1995, resulted in the furlough of anestimated 800,000 federal employees. It was caused by the expiration of a continuingfunding resolution (P.L. 104-31) agreed to on September 30, 1995, and by PresidentClinton’s veto of a second continuing resolution and a debt limit

Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code 98-844 GOVUpdated September 20, 2004Shutdown of the Federal Government:Causes, Effects, and ProcessKevin R. KosarAnalyst in American National GovernmentGovernment and Finance[hr]President was legally obligated to do that if the Congress didn't pass the appropriations bill.

LMAO "veto" WHAT?

Sorry, Clinton's actions shut down government. Clinton VETOED a passed appropriations bill.

[Deadshot]

Democraticly Democratics!
Get it right DS!:shame:


Damn Spelling Police, Frak'em all :fight::nana:

emale, you keep fightin in the past, the POTUS that already served two terms, while you're doing that we'll get his wife into office....:ecstatic:

[Marley]

I'm fighting lies posted today, really, get a clue.

[ViolaLee]

Not pointing any fingers, you know who you are. "Hillary, Obama, Edwards is SEXIST! Either call them all by their first names or all by their last names. As a woman I am tired of being denigerated by the media and posters.

I don't think it's sexist. I think it's because Clinton - at least to me - means Bill. I think it's just a way of distingushing which Clinton we mean.

[Marley]

Hey Viola! Nice to see you're still here.

I need to clear up another of your lies.

You claimed Clinton had a "Surplus," funny thing is the US Treasury eneded every year with more debt on the books than it started with.

We can EASILY confirm the US Treasury debt Viola, so why did you lie about "surpluses?"

[Truth_and_Power]

Sorry, Clinton's actions shut down government. Clinton VETOED a passed appropriations bill.


Neo-Con Truism #3:

A failure to reach a compromise is always the other side's fault.

[Marley]

The bill was on Clinton's desk, Clinton had the choice to veto it and shut down government or sign it and allow government to operate.

Clinton was entitled to do what he did.

It's the LIES I'm addressing here.

There is no dispute, Clinton took a clear specific action rendering a clear specific result. Clinton shut down government by executing his presidential veto on congress' appropriations bill.

[Truth_and_Power]

And congress was well aware that he would not accept what they were sending him. None of this happened in a vacuum.

[Buck Laser]

I'm fighting lies posted today, really, get a clue.

Fighting lies? You still haven't posted a link. I've come to expect this from you, though. Shout a lie long enough and loud enough and someone will believe it.

[Marley]

Post #30 Buck.

Let's deal with truth here please.

[ViolaLee]

Hey Viola! Nice to see you're still here.

I need to clear up another of your lies.

You claimed Clinton had a "Surplus," funny thing is the US Treasury eneded every year with more debt on the books than it started with.

We can EASILY confirm the US Treasury debt Viola, so why did you lie about "surpluses?"
You gotta stop listening to Rush Limbaugh's lies Emale.

Describing the claim that "the Bush administration squandered this giant surplus left by the Clinton administration" as a "Democrat [sic] mantra talking point," nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh falsely asserted that "there never was a surplus" under President Clinton. In fact, from 1998 to 2001, the federal government ran total annual budget surpluses of between $69.2 billion and $236.2 billion, according to figures from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).http://mediamatters.org/items/200509130001

[preservanation]

emale:You claimed Clinton had a "Surplus," funny thing is the US Treasury eneded every year with more debt on the books than it started with.Bill cooked the commerce dept books and stated false numbers. to fool the country into thinking that we were better off than we were.WASHINGTON -- The Commerce Department's painful report last week that the national economy is worse than anticipated obscured the document's startling revelation. Hidden in the morass of statistics, there is proof that the Clinton administration grossly overestimated the strength of the economy leading up to the 2000 election. Did the federal government join Enron and WorldCom in cooking the books?

Through all of President Clinton's last two years in office, the announced level of before-tax profits was at least 10 percent too high -- a discrepancy rising close to 30 percent during the last presidential campaign. Most startling, the Commerce Department in 2000 showed the economy on an upswing through most of the election year while in fact it was declining.The result: headlines in 2000 spewing false information of corporate profits growing at 25 percent, bolstering the stock market and holding up the state of the economy as the election approached. That is the underpinning for the Democratic myth that a growing and vibrant American economy has been sabotaged by President Bush's tax cut ("We lost the opportunity for long-term economic growth," says House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt). http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/729534/posts

All economists now agree that the 2001 recession started before Bush ever took office.
Despite the media effort to pin the 2001 recession on President Bush, the fact remains that he had little to do with the last eight years of economic policy from the White House. The infamous miracle bubble of Bill Clinton's economy burst last summer when OPEC oil price increases rocked the world economy.
In February 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson visited Saudi Arabia when prices were at their lowest. Richardson reportedly pressed Saudi Oil Minister Ali Naimi on the "oversupplied market" and expressed concern about "extreme price volatility."

Former Saudi minister Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani told a Houston oil conference that Richardson had "saved the oil industry" during that visit because his "intervention" had "persuaded" the Saudis to change policy by raising prices.In 1999, then-President Clinton pressed OPEC to raise prices in order to finance the brutal Russian war in Chechnya. Clinton needed Russia's help settling that pesky little war in Kosovo. However, Bill was unable to aid Boris Yeltsin directly because of the rampant corruption inside Moscow.However, there were also unexpected results. The oil sales helped Saddam Hussein re-arm his military with a brand new Chinese-built air defense system. The move is also now seen as a major blunder that triggered the 2001 recession.The recent parade of liberal media pundits that now call the 2001 recession the "Bush" economy are missing the mark by a few trillion dollars. The left is attacking President Bush for the legacy of Bill Clinton.http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/20/190717.shtml
If we want this sort of stuff back, and worse, reelect the Clintons.
Just like Bill said "You elect me, you get two. It is a package deal".

[Marley]

"You gotta stop listening to Rush Limbaugh's lies Emale. "

LOL

I'm "listening" to the US Treasury dear, your deflection won't hide your lies!

Are you ready to face up, fess up, and admit your lie?

Or shall I go retreive bona fide US Treasy debt data?

Your call Viola.

[Marley]

Hello? Viola?

Don't be afraid, the truth will set you free!

[Buck Laser]

Post #30 Buck.

Let's deal with truth here please.


I don't know if you've been paying attention, but a link is expected to be a URL. There's no URL in post #30. So I don't believe you.

[Marley]

IS the sand your sticking your head in conmfortable?

Two amazing things have come to be in recent years: Cut & Paste, and Google!!!

I taught my kid to use either before first grade.

You can do it Buck!

[Buck Laser]

IS the sand your sticking your head in conmfortable?

Two amazing things have come to be in recent years: Cut & Paste, and Google!!!

I taught my kid to use either before first grade.

You can do it Buck!

No, since you're the one making the revisionist claim, and you don't care to post the URL, I really don't give a shit. If you post an URL, I'll look at it. Until then, I dismiss it as the usual bullshit from the right wing. I have more important things to do than trace wobbly claims from neocons--like taking care of that hangnail that's been bothering me. :nana:

[Marley]

I didn't "revise" anything!

Clinton's VETO shut down government.


I provided credible, confirmable support of my assertion.

I'm fine with you being in, and clinging to, denial.

When you get a spine and develop character, you can read the report I provided in full.

Until then, don't let that sand get in your ears![hr]Viola?

Ready for LINKS!!!!!!!! to the US Treasury yet?

LEt's knock out all these myths and denial at once!

[tony mitra]

I recently heard Greenspan speaking with an interviewer about his book. He admitted there, that the Bush Government blamed him for part of the reason of the Republicans doing badly in the last election. He describes himself as a libertarian conservative, whatever it means, in his own words.

So, if the Bush Government really did blame him, even privately, then it would be kind of a tit-for-tat, that Greenspan would wait till he retired, and then turn around and blame the Bush Government for being fiscally irresponsible and a spendthrift.

It was kind of amusing, listening to him talking about his long tenure at the Fed.