1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Greenspan speaks

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Lamar Mundane, Sep 15, 2007.

  1. Lamar Mundane

    Lamar Mundane Member

    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."


    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.
  2. How's Bubble Head explain cheerleading for the ARM fiasco?
  3. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    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."
  4. zeke12

    zeke12 Guest

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

    On several levels.
  5. 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.
  6. HejiraHenry

    HejiraHenry Well-Known Member

    Democrats won both World Wars?


    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.

  7. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    HH is just sad he's too young to have been at Thermopylae.
  8. 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?
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Henry, Yes, the economy is cyclical and a president has less power than people realize to bring about economic prosperity during his four years. But there is a lot that a president can do to fuck things up and create problems that he leaves behind in his wake. Clinton benefited greatly from a great natural economic period (economies around the world, not just the U.S. prospered in the 1990s, due to technological advances and the productivity gains achieved by simple things like the proliferation of corporate computer networks). But to give Clinton his due, he did NOTHING to fuck things up. The economy was humming, so we were bringing in a ton in tax revenues. In my opinion, most government spending is a problem and the Congress spent too much under Clinton. But that is not the issue it has become under Bush when the government is bringing in more than it is spending. And Clinton ran budget surpluses for much of his presidency.

    I agree wholeheartedly with what Greenspan has to say about Bush--I have posted about this on here several times within the last year and a half, even before things were looking as bad as they are starting to. A lot of people saw him fucking it up. I'm all for cutting taxes. Hell, we'd have a minimal Federal income tax if I had my way, and only the capital gains of the very wealthiest would be touched. But you can NOT cut taxes to the degree we have and pick up spending the way we have under Bush. Domestic spending has been out of control, and we have been executing two wars that have sucked up billions upon billions of dollars. 9/11 didn't do us any favors--spending on a variety of things had to increase after that, but Iraq combined with the tax cuts is what has really created a HUGE mess that no one is acknowledging. We are not quite seeing it yet. In fact, Bush will probably escape eight years and be able to boast that the economy was just fine during his time (as I said, cyclical and other factors have more impact on the economy than a president's short-term fiscal policy). The next president may be all but fucked, though, because of the mess Bush has created. We have been writing huge checks for the last 6 years or so without any plan for how we are going to pay them back. We have relied heavily on the willingness of foreigners to own U.S. debt, with China, India, Japan, Taiwan, etc. leading the way. And they have been dumping our debt like crazy lately, including foreign and central banks divesting of U.S. investment at scary rates the last few months. It's been noticeable, even with U.S. investors picking up some of the slack in U.S. treasuries recently as they have fled the money markets (they are spooked by where our economy is headed). But even more scary than U.S. investors, who sometimes demonstrate irrational panic behavior, is that foreign government investors are spooked by where the U.S. economy is heading. And they are usually right--these kinds of things are an excellent predictor of where we are headed.

    You can thank George Bush for the nasty recession (probably VERY nasty) that we are almost certainly going to get hit with in the next two years (and that the next president will get blamed for). We are already seeing unemployment creeping up and the ongoing housing recession is starting to have a noticeable impact. Bush could have learned something from Clinton... but he didn't.
  10. Lamar Mundane

    Lamar Mundane Member

    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.
  11. Mystery_Meat

    Mystery_Meat Guest

    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?
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    You really believe this? The Democrats have a long, demonstrated history of spending wastefully and pork-barreling U.S. tax payers to death. The Republicans have become just as bad. The difference is that the Democrats have never pretended to be fiscally responsible. They love to spend without regard for a budget, and they'll tell you all about it. The Republicans, on the other hand, talk the talk about fiscal responsibility and then exhibit the same exact behavior. On top of it, they might exacerbate it by cutting taxes at the same time they are spending like mad. But anyone who believes most Democrats believe in a pay-as-you-go system, is kidding themselves. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page