V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Greenspan, a self described libertarian leaning republican, in a new book describes GW as pathetic in terms of economic thinking/planning. He views Bubba Willie as the most competent (in economics) president with whom he had contact (going back to Nixon). He expresses complete disgust with republican congresses of the recent past. I'm sure there are many of you that despise "Bush Haters" and refer to yourselves as conservatives (having no clue as to what that means beyond saying, "I support the troops" and "I'm pro-life") will be able to explain Greenspan's lack of understanding in these matters since you are Harley riders or stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last nite . . . .

Lefty
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
This guy?

Greenspan Says Clinton's Plan For Stock Investment Is Unwise : Fed Chief Opposes Social Security Plan
By Mitchell MartinPublished: THURSDAY, JANUARY 21, 1999
NEW YORK: Just hours after President Bill Clinton suggested investing part of the pension money in the Social Security trust fund in the stock market, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board chairman, told Congress on Wednesday he thought it was a bad idea..............


Greenspan Testimony Highlights Bush Plan for Deliberate Federal Bankruptcy
By Michael Meurer
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 02 March 2004

Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's Feb. 25 testimony to the House Budget Committee provided an unintentionally candid look at the Bush administration's deliberate fiscal policy of bankrupting the federal government to justify a sweeping program of privatization.
During his February 25 testimony before the House Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan generated sensational national headlines by recommending that President Bush's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts be made permanent while Social Security and Medicare benefits be dramatically cut to achieve long term deficit reduction and a balanced budget.



Well I guess he's fair and balanced or do ya have something else up your sleeve??

Yes, I support my profession and I am pro-life. But I didn't ride the scoot today and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
That's pretty funny Lefty. From what I read Greenspan lambasted the republicans and the democrats, and singled out Bush for failing to veto the pork barrel that passed his desk. He saved his biggest criticizims for the Republicans that "lost their way" in conservative economics, he doesn't even bother addressing the democrat's plans for tax increases and spending, because it goes without saying that he is against both.

He also stated that he supported the Bush tax cut based on what he thought would be a surplus that never happened. He advised Bush to push the tax-cut, but admitted that he was wrong because the surpulses never "materialized", whatever that means. Greenspan was a supply-side economist closely linked with Ronald Reagan, not Bill Clinton, so unless your party is now gloryfing Ronald Reagan's economic plan, its' a boat that I'm guessing you're not likely to want to start rowing in.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3606059&page=1

A much bigger issue is his contention that the Iraq "was mostly about oil." Something that most everybody knows, but something that the Bush Administration is going to get whacked over the head with by moveon.org and the like. The words will be twisted to imply that the intention was to "steal Iraq oil", rather than the truth which was to prevent Iraq from controlling the world's oil supplies. Two entirely different concepts, but not something that is going to be clarified by the left you can be sure.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296938,00.html
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
{salute( Quotes from Greenspan's book.

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.

"The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan wrote. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

"'Deficits don't matter,' to my chagrin, became part of Republicans' rhetoric."

Greenspan enjoyed a good relationship with Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, "a fellow information hound." They also were on the same economic page. During the Clinton administration, budget deficits turned to surpluses. But Greenspan was "disappointed and sad" when news surfaced that Clinton had an affair with Monica Lewinsky, a White House intern.


Lefty
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,064 Posts
DJW said:
He also stated that he supported the Bush tax cut based on what he thought would be a surplus that never happened. He advised Bush to push the tax-cut, but admitted that he was wrong because the surpulses never "materialized", whatever that means. Greenspan was a supply-side economist closely linked with Ronald Reagan, not Bill Clinton, so unless your party is now gloryfing Ronald Reagan's economic plan, its' a boat that I'm guessing you're not likely to want to start rowing in.
That means the surpluses never materialized because of the war spending.
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
What percentage of the budget is "war spending" exactly? Pretty small isn't it? Perhaps there are other examples that better illustrate the wasteful spending of Congress. Ya know, the group that has an exceedingly low approval rate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
DJW said:
A much bigger issue is his contention that the Iraq "was mostly about oil." Something that most everybody knows, but something that the Bush Administration is going to get whacked over the head with by moveon.org and the like. The words will be twisted to imply that the intention was to "steal Iraq oil", rather than the truth which was to prevent Iraq from controlling the world's oil supplies. Two entirely different concepts, but not something that is going to be clarified by the left you can be sure.
The only country capable of controlling the world's oil supply is Saudi Arabia. While Iraq has huge reserves, they have little capacity to pump - even before we took out Saddam. So why did we take out Saddam? Simple - he had the audacity to put what little oil he had on the market priced in Euros. The U.S. has demanded since the 1920's that the world's oil be priced in Dollars and saw Saddam's action as an attempt to devalue the Dollar in world markets.

-- kerry --
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,942 Posts
HiAngle said:
What percentage of the budget is "war spending" exactly? Pretty small isn't it? Perhaps there are other examples that better illustrate the wasteful spending of Congress. Ya know, the group that has an exceedingly low approval rate.
Edit: forgot to mention,...

A statement released by Senate Democrats said that under Bush's watch, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $2.78 trillion since 2001; the $236 billion surplus he inherited has been turned into the three largest deficits in U.S. history; and national debt has risen $3 trillion to $8.9 trillion.

"After running up $3 trillion in new debt -- including more than half a trillion dollars for his flawed Iraq policy -- it is astounding that the president is once again lecturing Congress about fiscal responsibility," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

"Democrats are investing in the priorities of America's middle class families, veterans and children, and are dedicated to fighting terror more effectively; President Bush wants to continue investing only in Iraq."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,460 Posts
thrasher said:
Edit: forgot to mention,...

A statement released by Senate Democrats said that under Bush's watch, federal spending has increased 50 percent to $2.78 trillion since 2001; the $236 billion surplus he inherited has been turned into the three largest deficits in U.S. history; and national debt has risen $3 trillion to $8.9 trillion.

"After running up $3 trillion in new debt -- including more than half a trillion dollars for his flawed Iraq policy -- it is astounding that the president is once again lecturing Congress about fiscal responsibility," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.

"Democrats are investing in the priorities of America's middle class families, veterans and children, and are dedicated to fighting terror more effectively; President Bush wants to continue investing only in Iraq."

Of course Senate Democrats wouldn't lie to us or anything now would they? :roflback: :roflback:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,942 Posts
Cop_Stanger said:
Of course Senate Democrats wouldn't lie to us or anything now would they? :roflback: :roflback:
So you are saying these statements are false, or are you just flapping your lips? :harhar: :harhar: :harhar:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
PR3VS56 said:
Greenspan is an old stick in the mud. I'm a VP with a major Wall St firm, in this business for 27 years, and GLAD to see him out of it!!
Maybe stick in the mud = conservative?

Lefty
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,436 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
compressor#v said:
"I'm a VP with a major Wall St firm,"
Does that make you an expert on the economy, or a well paid gambler?:hmmm:
Gambler's gamble with their own money . . . . . brokers gamble with your's and skim, sometimes ethically, sometimes not . . . Their skimming and hedging in recent years has put them below Congress in terms of trustworthiness.

Lefty
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top