Greenspan speaks

[Lamar Mundane]

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

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

 

[HejiraHenry]

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."

 

[zeke12]

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 ****ing stupid.

On several levels.

 

[ADifferentOkie]

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 ****ing 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.

 

[HejiraHenry]

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 ****ing 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.

 

[dooley_womack1]

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

 

[ADifferentOkie]

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?

 

[The Big Ragu]

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 **** 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 **** 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 ****ing 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 ****ed, 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.

 

[Lamar Mundane]

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.

 

[Mystery_Meat]

Faith-based rational and conservatism have mercifully expired.

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?

 

[The Big Ragu]

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

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.

 

[Lamar Mundane]

It's not a matter of believing, it's happening. Whatever new spending is created must be offset by cuts or new revenue sources.

If not, give me specific examples.

MM - faith-based policy refers to the Iraq war, deficit spending and homeland security. W bases his policy on "if I believe hard enough it will happen."

See welcomed as liberators, last throes, cutting taxes during time of war and spending more than you take in and allowing 75 percent of cargo that enters the USA to go unchecked for potential bombs.

Next.

I love the fact that no one can refute Greenspan's assertion that W has been a train wreck fiscally (if not for housing bubble prompted by post Sept. 11 interest rate plummet, the US economy would have been stagnant. NOw that the bubble has burst we see a loss of 4,000 jobs last month and a recession on the horizon - Like Father like son.)

I remember GOP Congressmen blasting Clinton and threatening timetables for exiting Bosnia. Clinton handled war responsibly (zero American deaths) while guiding an economy that produced 23 million jobs and led millions out of poverty.

What has Conservatism produced in the past six years other than $3 trillion to the national debt?

 

[The Big Ragu]

I already posted about the mess Bush has created. I don't want to retype what I already posted about. It DOES NOT follow that since Bush cut taxes and spent like crazy, therefore the Democratic Party has ever demonstrated a history of being the pay-as-you-go party--an assertion you made. One has nothing to do with the other. Bush is a **** up. And the Democrats will still spend like drunken sailors any chance they get.

I can also listen to all of the current presidential candidates messages and look at the performance of nearly every politician in the House and Senate not named Ron Paul (Republicans and Democrats) and realize that neither party takes a pay-as-you-go approach. The Republicans talk to the talk. It's all BS. The Democrats don't even bother. They campaign on how much they are going to spend to give everybody everything.

From a fiscal standpoint, probably the best thing you can hope for is one party in the White House and the other party controlling Congress--what we had for Clinton's presidency and what we didn't have for most of Bush's. When there is gridlock between the executive and the legislature, it seems to do the best job of keeping either party from spending the way they want to because they fight each other's spending whims.

 

[sportschick]

It's quite shocking when I agree with Ragu on something to do with fiscal management of government spending.

And Lamar, you're no better than the knee-jerk Bush defenders. The Dems are not nearly as wonderful as you make them sound. I might vote for them most of time, but it's more the lesser of two evils.

 

[Lamar Mundane]

Facts don't lie:

1. Bill Clinton is the only president of the last 25 years to preside over a budget surplus.
2. Bill Clinton boosted Pell Grant limits allowing middle class families (like mine) to send their children to college - in my case a great investment, the Fed govt has made at least 5 times in tax collections off me in the past decade - smart policy. Send more kids to college, collect more in taxes b/c they make more money
3. Bill Clinton was praised this year by right wingers after the 10th anniversary of his welfare reform - getting people to work and off welfare rolls - saves money.
4. Millions of people living below the poverty level raised themselves out of that distinction during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Poverty is back on the rise, so is crime - do you think their might be a connection. Bill Clinton invested money to put cops on the streets - W has underfunded the COPS program.

I am better than knee-jerk W supporters - I use facts as the basis of my views. They have hope and faith and follow blindly.

Is it a surprise that a baby whose daddy's Saudi buddies bailed him out of failed oil operations will transfer the greatest foreign policy blunder in America's history to his successor. W has left mess after mess in his life and has taken no responsibility. He was born rich and he suckered GOP voters with his faux cowboy routine in 2000 and anti-gay rhetoric in 2004.

Don't blame me I voted for Clinton.

Wouldn't it just suck to go back to those "failed" policies? I'd take 8 more years of Clinton judgement and leadership.

Thompson? old man with no drive and flip-flopper on aborition, Libya and Osama. HAH!
Rudy? Way to work with the 9-11 commission, I know making money capitalizing on a nation's tragedy was more important. Plus, if America wants to vote for a pro-choice, gun-control candidate it will vote Democrat.
Mitt? See Flip-flop specialist?
McCai....zzzzzZZZzzz


In the end, don't trust me. Trust Greenspan. He's a Republican and even he said the war in Iraq was for oil.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Facts don't lie:

1. Bill Clinton is the only president of the last 25 years to preside over a budget surplus.

"Facts" tell whatever story you want them to. House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and the Republicans in Congress, can just as easily take all the credit for this--including Welfare reform, which was a basic tenet of the Contract With America (and was co-opted by Clinton's poll-driven presidency).

Claiming it was the Republicans in Congress who held Clinton in check wouldn't be any more true than the nonsense that the Democratic Party is the "pay as you go" party.

The real fact is that throughout the 90s, there was a world economy that would have produced a gala presidency for anyone of any party who didn't do anything to screw it up (I'm not taking anything away from Clinton. Fiscally, he was not the moron that Bush has been. But even without Iraq, post 9/11, Clinton's stewartship wouldn't have produced a surplus. He was a product of a great point in the cycle, in which business productivity gains were producing unprecedented economic growth), and there was gridlock in the U.S. government that didn't allow either party to spend us into oblivion.

No offense, but the rest of your post gives absolutely no insight into fiscal policy under Clinton. You actually claim that various expenditures during his presidency somehow led to us spending less money. It's illogical and it's tripe.

 

[Write-brained]

These threads give me a headache. I don't understand spending all my time defending the goofballs in one party or the other.

Here's some non-partisan truths as I see 'em:

- Clinton benefited from a "good cycle" in the economy and he did nothing to hurt it, either. I think the whole country benefits with a Democrat as president and Republicans in Congress.

- Bush turned a potential subtle downswing in the economy and made it much worse.

- Bin Laden moved virtually undetected during the Clinton Administration. Nothing but a blip. First I remember hearing of Bin Laden and Al Queda was during the Monica scandal. Shortly after Monica broke, Clinton bombed a pharmacy saying it was an Al Queda hotbed ... it was a pharmacy.

- Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to go into Iraq.

There's no point in hating one party. Both have their crooks and imbeciles.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Bingo.

 

[Dan Rydell]

I was raised Republican (I'm independent now), but I thought Clinton was a better president than anyone else in the past 30 or 40 years.

Meanwhile, I'm thoroughly disgusted by the Bush administration, which circled the wagons almost from Day 1 and seems to think that power means everything.

I wonder what the last book is that Bush has read, other than maybe a Calvin and Hobbes anthology.

On a side note, management often seems to take its cues from government, and the workplace seems to have suffered the results. Lots of suits walking around with big sticks these days, demanding production and company loyalty but giving little back.

We really need more than two political parties in the United States. The Democrats and Republicans are so polarized now, and both parties have sold out to their corporate masters.

Meanwhile, they'll do anything to keep the Green Party or any other party from gaining ground. Just try to get your third-party candidate into a campaign debate. The freeze-out is swift and embarassing, and it hurts the public that much more.

The 2008 campaign will probably be the nastiest yet, and in crunch time it will be all about tearing down candidates instead of building consensus on the crucial issues at hand.

And there are many crucial issues at hand these days.