Greenspan speaks

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."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402451.html?hpid=topnews

Insert obligatory rip on infidelity but no one can argue that Bill Clinton was anything but great for the US and A.

23 million jobs created
millions out of poverty
a war with an exit strategy
rising wages
peace and prosperity for 8 years

How's that war in Iraq going?

Why thinking, curiousity matters:

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."

Faith-based rational and conservatism have mercifully expired.

 

How's Bubble Head explain cheerleading for the ARM fiasco?

 

Laughable economic thesis on the face of it, but we've fought this fight before and I'm bored with it.

Either presidents have magic powers to affect the economy or they don't. You can't say Clinton did and Bush doesn't. Nor can you argue, really, that Bush does and Clinton didn't.

The big picture is that the economy is cyclical, like the larger global patterns of weather. And, sorry, man can huff and puff but the cycles roll on regardless.

Where I would take great and violent exception with Lamar is on the

"a war with an exit strategy" line

Our Clinton exit strategy from Somalia emboldened OBL and his followers into thinking we were the sort of weak-willed nation that could punch once in the nose and easily overcome. (And we would be, frankly, if one of the two major political parties had its way.)

When the History of the Great War Against Islamic Extremism is finally written, little children will ask their teachers, "But why didn't Clinton just kill OBL when he had the chance?"

The teacher will shake her head and say, "because he was too busy having sex with a young woman who wasn't his wife. And we really don't get into that topic until next semester."

 

I like you a lot, Henry, but this is just off-the-charts fucking stupid.

On several levels.

 

Agreed.
And I'll point out AGAIN that it was Democrats who won both World Wars.
The Republicans are the ones who look for a reason to fight at the drop of a hat (like this Iraq mess).
The Democrats are the ones who realize it should be a last resort, and then kick ass when it comes time to do it.

 

Democrats won both World Wars?

Jesus.

No, Americans won both World Wars. At a time when being an American meant more than whether you put a "W" or a blue dot on the back of your car.

There's only one Democrat I se out there with the gumption and grit to win any kind of war today, and that's Lieberman. And we see what you've all done to him.

I'm going to be merciful and not even both to note that it took two Republicans to end the worst-handled war in out history, Vietnam, after it was escalated and micromanaged by ... gasp! .... Democrats.

Yeah, they really kicked that Viet Cong ass.

But I'm the one who's writing stupid things.

Whatever.

 

HH is just sad he's too young to have been at Thermopylae.

 

First, Iraq is quickly becoming the worst-handled war in our history.
Next, look at the timeline. It was a Republican, Eisenhower, who got us into Vietnam.
How did Nixon do ending that war?
I think Kennedy would have pulled us out of there if he hadn't been assassinated, but I'll give you that Johnson screwed things up royally.
And yes, Democrats won WWI and II. The leadership in the White House and the legislature were all Democrats. It was a Democrat who decided to drop the bombs to end the second one.
You claim my party is a bunch of cowards who are trying to make America a pushover, and then you won't give us credit for what we have done.
But hey, Reagan sure showed Grenada, didn't he?

 

HH went right for the Monica line, predictable (In fact was predicted).

Policies do matter and impact the economy. Greenspan is respected on both sides of the aisle.

Clinton left office, and W, with a budget surplus. The 10-year economic outlook as he left saw the ELIMINATION of the national debt.

W cut taxes and his war of choice has turned a quarter trillion budget surplus into a $3 trillion addition of debt. He's had what 3 vetoes and zero when the GOP House and Senate sent pork-packed bills to his desk.

With a return of Dem led Congress we have restored PAYGo.

Now, mention MOnica to show your intelligence once again.

 

You give HH a hard time for the Monica line but you take that shot? What in hell does faith-based anything have to do with it?