Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan’s new book blasts President Bush for failing to use his veto power in his first six years of office to rein in the Republican-controlled Congress’ spending spree.
“The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” Greenspan writes. “They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose.”
Greenspan, a self-described "libertarian Republican," says former Presidents Nixon and Clinton were “by far the smartest presidents I’ve worked with,” and praises Clinton for focusing steadily on long-term economic growth.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- politicalmama on Open thread 11/24
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
23 Comments
But Bush supporters will still worship their little emperor and will now start to denounce Greenspan as unpatriotic.
Too bad Greenspan and others did not speak up during Bush’s first term and tell the truth.
I’ve never seen the American government so disconnected from the American People.
They find the American People annoying.
On the other hand they’re willing to give the thugs ruling Israel whatever they want
IE: Iraq and a possible war on Iran.
Also money , neatly tucked inside other Bills being written by AIPAC and passed unnoticed late at night.
In Texas, a big chunk of an I-35 overpass fell from a decaying bridge onto I-35. Nobody was hurt but traffic was backed-up for miles, using gasoline and going nowhere while waiting.
Alan, be careful of giving any credit to Clinton…..you may be accused of having enjoyed sex….with a woman.
The Republicans are hopefully done for a very long time in this country. My hope is that next election the Democrats will pick up 4 or 5 Senate seats and another 20 or so House seats as well as winning the White House. The “Reagan Revolution” is over and conservatism has been shown to be what most of us always knew it was which was not any good for anybody but the rich and powerful. It was never about “fiscal responsibility”. Look at how the conservatives have ran up the budget deficit- we went from a surplus to a deficit the first year Bush was in office. It was never about “family values”. Look at how the conservatives are being busted right and left for being closet queers and chasing boys while preaching about “family values”. These guys make Clinton look like a saint! And it certainly was never about “less government”. The conservatives have done their best to put the government in every aspect of our lives including our bedrooms. No, what conservatism is about is big business. Less government for big business so they can import poison in our children’s toys and food. And they they want “tort reform” so when Mattel imports poisonous toys and your child is made sick or even killed, you cannot sue Mattel. Everybody but the totally deaf, dumb and blind now knows what conservatism is REALLY about. America now has a choice about what kind of country we wish to live in. Conservatives dream of a country like Hati where 90% of the people live in misery while 10% live in gated luxury. That is not the kind of place I think most of us want to live in.
Republicans sure did deserve to lose. They acted like Democrats!
The Republicans are hopefully done for a very long time in this country.
Look at how the conservatives have ran up the budget deficit- we went from a surplus to a deficit the first year Bush was in office.Posted by: Kev
The Democrats will have no one to blame if the Republicans are not around. The same goes for the Republicans. They need each other so they can blame the other party for their own excesses. If you are the only party in power and have the numbers in Congress, you cant very well blame the other party for the crap you are doing.
When you people get it through your heads there never was a surplus, and I hold Democrats and Republicans equally responsible for that lie since they both used it. Stealing from Social Security to create a fake surplus is going to cost us in the long run. For those doubters, check out the budget for the “surplus” years and you will find the proof. Dont want to wade through the budget, check out the IRS income and expense charts. The new Congress talks about a balanced budget, but it will be based on stealing from Social Security.
Looks like the shrubster isnt the only one trying to “polish” his legacy. Greenspan was complicit, another bush lap dog like powell.
And now he wants us to believe he really was above the fray? heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheh.
Well, nice try, but you know what they say. You cant polish a turd. And that WILL be the legacy of anyone associated with bushco.
Looks like just about anyone associated with bush and concerned about their legacy is trying to disclaim bush. I really thought Sen. Roberts would have enough integrity to not run again, and do his own disowning. Guess I gave him too much credit.
“Republicans sure did deserve to lose. They acted like Democrats!”
No! They acted like they were in the past. They were just good at pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes…The ole dog and pony show! I know it’s hard to accept the truth! The Republicans are all about money! They’d shoot their mothers to gain financial and political clout!!!
Republicans acted like Democrats? You mean the Republicans balanced the budget and created a surplus?
Greenspan is the ultimate pocket protector wearing, drive by, part time politico.
He may have been a good economist, but his opinion and his vote have no more weight than anyone else.
Because of his former position, he got more press than the average guy.
What he said isn’t really more important than what any single voter has to say.
Republicans sure did deserve to lose. They acted like Democrats!
Posted by: Joe Williams
lolLOLthat’s all you got??
The new Congress talks about a balanced budget, but it will be based on stealing from Social Security.
Posted by: Doubting Thomas
isn’t that crazy.it’s all p.r.and having willing and weak people to believe it and hate other americans.
bush of course wants to convert social security to private accounts like wall street is doing good this month.
what will the govt do when all ss is invested in wall street and it crashes?
and, they have the balls to spend social security funds and then they claim too many people are reaching retirement age.
it’s that shiney object being waved in your face to take the attention away from the real issues.
Well, nice try, but you know what they say. You cant polish a turd. And that WILL be the legacy of anyone associated with bushco.
Posted by: ksfarmgrrl
Funny how all of bush’s pals try to jump off the sinking ship.
The list goes way beyond Powell and Greenspan.
Write a book and claim you were fooled by bush.
We elect these criminals to protect us not sell us out.
Greenspan is the ultimate pocket protector wearing, drive by, part time politico.
He may have been a good economist, but his opinion and his vote have no more weight than anyone else.
Because of his former position, he got more press than the average guy.
What he said isn’t really more important than what any single voter has to say.
Posted by: Kansas
For some reason I think if GS had blasted Clinton you would be first in line talkin about how brilliant he is.
You neo-cons always seem to reduce issues against you to the ridiculous.
You love waving those shiney objects around, don’t you?
Newest Pentagon Report, for some reason with held until betray us and crock’r sell 10 more years, shows Iraq is in worst shape than ever before.
Report spun by bush
into showing,
just a little bit of hard work by america needed to right the ship of democracy in the middle east, to get that beacon of faith goin in the right direction all we need is mo’ hard work,
to give those folks in iraq a better life we need to invest $400,000,000,000,000,000.00 more or less,
to show all those who sacrificed their loved ones they didn’t go to heaven in vain we need to send more freedom fighters over there to spread the love of god… our god, not that one they choose to believe in.
How much longer does this shit go on??
“”"”The Democrats will have no one to blame if the Republicans are not around. The same goes for the Republicans. They need each other so they can blame the other party for their own excesses. If you are the only party in power and have the numbers in Congress, you cant very well blame the other party for the crap you are doing. “”"”
I SO agree with that! And when the Democrats have total power in 2009, I and many others intend to put them on full notice that they have got one chance to get it right. And if the fail we will not accept excuses of any kind. I am not in the mood for bullshit and I don’t want to hear anything about a “fillibuster”. The Constitution says that legislation may be moved by 50 votes plus 1 in the Senate and if the GOP tries to use the fillibuster to obstruct, time to use the “nuclear option” and do away with the fillbuster (the Republicans should have done it when they threatened to do it). And I don’t want to hear “it is Bush’s fault” either. It may be but we elected you to fix it and we expect results.
The biggest reason that Jimmy Carter was a failure as a President was not because of anything anybody else did. It was because he would not maintain party discipline and move his programs through the Congress which was controlled by his party. His own party ruined his presidency. The next Democrat cannot afford to be a “nice guy” (or nice gal). He or she will have to maintain very rigid discipline (as the GOP does) on important matters and most not back off of using whatever they have to use to do so.
Doubting
— though you are correct, in that there was no “real” surplus under Clinton, you are wrong to call the use of social security funds “stealing”.
Unless Social Security is “privatized” the funds MUST be invested in US Treasury bonds.
When you or I buy a US Treasury Bond, that invested money goes straight to the “General Fund” — the US Treasury.
When Social Security “Trust Fund” money is used to “buy” a bond, where does that money go?
Into the “General Fund” of course.
If you don’t want the government to “use” the social security money, FORCE the government to put the money into mutual funds or private investments. Otherwise, it WILL be used.
Where do you want them to put that money? In a coffee can burried under the Washington Monument? In a vault at Fort Knox?
Henry Fonda needs to have a talk with you about where all the “Building and Loan” money is.
Invested money never sits idle.
However, when you are talking about the Government “investing” it itself, that is of course illegal if anyone else tries it.
Write YOURSELF an $1,000,000.00 loan.
Now go to the bank and tell the banker that someone owes you $1,000,000.00 and you want to borrow against that future income stream.
Obviously, your income did not change when you wrote yourself that first loan.
Obviously, your net worth did not change.
The same thing happens when Uncle Sam writes itself a loan.
The “Trust Funds” do not exist. There is NO real Social Security Trust Fund. There is no real Medicare Trust Fund.
It is an accounting trick. A way to introduce a “flat tax” on earned (non-investment) income. A way to move Social Security money into the General Fund.
Again, there is NO real trust fund.
Those who claim otherwise are not worth arguing with, they are simply too stupid to understand.
doubting
One other thing:
Clinton benefited enourmously from the Reagan economic program.
Clinton also benefited enourmously from demographics.
The baby boomers were entering their prime spending and investing years under Clinton.
It will be about another 20 years, under the “Echo Boom” until another President has it as good, demographically speaking.
Again, there is NO real trust fund.
Those who claim otherwise are not worth arguing with, they are simply too stupid to understand.
Posted by: Econ101 | September 19, 2007 at 12:23 AM
I agree with you 100% Econ. I would bet though that more than half the people in this country do NOT know there is NO Trust Fund.
And that may be part of the reason why almost no one sees the great train wreck pending ahead, the Social Security/Medicare Fiscal Crisis – Coming to a theatre near you in the next 10-12 years.
The other reason why people don’t think there’s a problem is that Democrats continue to lie about this and say there is no problem. Automatically, 1/2 the country thinks there is no problem.
“Write YOURSELF an $1,000,000.00 loan.
Now go to the bank and tell the banker that someone owes you $1,000,000.00 and you want to borrow against that future income stream.”
Hey! That sounds like a great idea!
President Bush plans to bail out subprime mortgage holdersPosted Aug 31st 2007 9:58AM by Jonathan BerrFiled under: Countrywide Financial (CFC), Goldman Sachs Group (GS), Toll Brothers (TOL), Economic data, S and P 500, DJIA, Bear Stearns Cos (BSC), Housing
With his popularity at an all time low and the very real prospect of the Democrats taking back control of the White House in 2008, President Bush is throwing a lifeline to subprime mortgage holders who are in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure.
The plan would allow homeowners who are 90 days behind in their mortgages to refinance their debt through loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration, a move that will help about 80,000 households. Homeowners also would be able to avoid taxes on forgiven debt under a temporary change Bush is proposing. The President also will call for Congress to raise FHA loan limits to $417,000 in some expensive markets. Interestingly, Bush is rejecting calls to let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase the total value of the mortgages they hold in their portfolio.
Before people talk about the return of compassionate conservatism, it’s important to remember that many subprime mortgage holders are speculators or people who bought second or third homes. Nonetheless, the administration had to do something to help people who were hoodwinked by sleazy brokers into mortgages that they couldn’t afford.
In a televised address, Bush like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke stressed that it isn’t government’s role to bail out speculators. He also argued that the economy “remains strong enough to weather any turbulance.”
Regardless, investors took these reports as a positive sign, sending shares of financial stocks including Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (NYSE: GS), Countrywide Financial Corp. (NYSE: CFC) and Bear Stearns Cos. (NYSE: BSC) higher. Homebuilders, including Hovnanian Enterprises Inc. (NYSE: HOV), Toll Brothers Inc. (NYSE: TOL) and Beazer Homes USA Inc. (NYSE: BZH) all gave back their gains from earlier today after the speech.
Something has to be done to help the real victims of this crisis, though I’m not sure whether these moves will be enough to address the subprime problem. The government needs to be sure that it’s helping the people who deserve to be helped.
So Why does Congress Bail Out Corporate America?http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Why+does+congress+bail+out+corporate+america%3F&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Too bad the gov’t could not save many many other local small business firms that are left to compete in the NOT free market.
===============
AN EARLY AND EXCLUSIVE PRIMARYThursday, September 27, 2007Posted by Jim HightowerListen to this CommentaryThe top presidential candidates of both political parties are meeting with voters in a key primary, promising to help them on the issues they care about.
Are they in Iowa? No. New Hampshire? Uh-uh. California? Nowhere near it. So, where?
Wall Street.
While regular citizens won’t start voting on the presidential contenders until January, an intensive, closed-door primary has already been taking place inside the confines of investment banks, hedge funds, and other financial institutions in Manhattan. Reporters are not allowed in, candidates don’t issue press releases about their appearances, and there is no disclosure about what the presidential wannabes pledge to these elite banking interests in order to gain their financial backing. It’s strictly a private campaign – albeit with enormous public impact.
Bear Stearns, for example, has had its own presidential tour, summoning seven major candidates to its Midtown headquarters for exclusive presentations and Q&A sessions with its managing partners. If you’re just a plain ol’ voter, you’d be lucky to get a handshake with any of these aspirants, but this financial conglomerate can command its own little tête-à-tête with Romney, Clinton, Giuliani, Obama, Thompson, and others.
Business Week magazine reports that these Wall Street barons not only want to get commitments on issues like global trade and tax cuts, but they also use the private sessions to measure the candidates’ ability to “make smart decisions in times of uncertainty, a trait bankers and traders prize in themselves.”
Wait a minute! Aren’t these the same people who brought us Enron, NAFTA, offshoring, exorbitant credit card fees, dependency on oil, pension collapses, and other “smart decisions?” Indeed, isn’t Bear Stearns itself butt deep in the ongoing subprime mortgage disaster? Why should anyone listen to them?
“The Candidates On Wall Street,” http://www.businessweek.com, April 2, 2007=====================
Bailing Out Wall Street:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=Bailing+Out+Wall+Street&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8