1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Greenspan: Clinton was god; Iraq was abt Oil

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by ymc, Sep 15, 2007.

  1. ymc

    ymc Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,969
    Likes Received:
    36
    Seems to contain a lot of truth. I wonder what the conservatives here have to say about this fellow conservative? ;)

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

    Greenspan Is Critical Of Bush in Memoir
    Former Fed Chairman Has Praise for Clinton

    By Bob Woodward
    Washington Post Staff Writer
    Saturday, September 15, 2007; Page A01

    Alan Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years and was the leading Republican economist for the past three decades, levels unusually harsh criticism at President Bush and the Republican Party in his new book, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.

    While condemning Democrats, too, for rampant federal spending, he offers Bill Clinton an exemption. The former president emerges as the political hero of "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," Greenspan's 531-page memoir, which is being published Monday.

    In 1987, Alan Greenspan was sworn in as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Look back at his more than 18-year career through four presidencies with analysis of his legacy, a compilation of stories about his tenure and archived photographs.

    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."

    Greenspan accuses the Republicans who presided over the party's majority in the House until last year of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of the Senate and House in last year's elections. "The Republicans in Congress lost their way," Greenspan writes. "They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither."

    He singles out J. Dennis Hastert, the Illinois Republican who was House speaker until January, and Tom DeLay, the Texan who was majority leader until he resigned after being indicted for violating campaign finance laws in his home state.

    "House Speaker Hastert and House majority leader Tom DeLay seemed readily inclined to loosen the federal purse strings any time it might help add a few more seats to the Republican majority," he writes.

    He adds three pages later: "I don't think the Democrats won. It was the Republicans who lost. The Democrats came to power in the Congress because they were the only party left standing."

    Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticizes his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice President Cheney. Former Bush Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying, "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

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

    He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic devastation."

    When Bush and Cheney won the 2000 election, Greenspan writes, "I thought we had a golden opportunity to advance the ideals of effective, fiscally conservative government and free markets. . . . I was soon to see my old friends veer off to unexpected directions."

    He says, "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large, anticipated federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office." So Bush's goals "were no longer entirely appropriate. He continued to pursue his presidential campaign promises nonetheless."

    Greenspan was intensely criticized for endorsing a large tax cut in 2001 in congressional testimony during the first weeks of the Bush administration. He notes that he was recommending any tax cut, even a smaller one proposed by some Democrats. But he acknowledges that those who had warned him about the perception he was backing Bush's plan were right. "The tax-cut testimony proved to be politically explosive," he writes.

    In 1987, Alan Greenspan was sworn in as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Look back at his more than 18-year career through four presidencies with analysis of his legacy, a compilation of stories about his tenure and archived photographs.

    Yet, he adds: "While politics had not been my intent, I'd misjudged the emotions of the moment. . . . Yet I'd have given the same testimony if Al Gore had been president."

    By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, Washington was "harboring a dysfunctional government. . . . Governance has become dangerously dysfunctional."

    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."

    During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told the president. "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."

    Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."

    Greenspan interviewed Clinton for the book and clearly admires him. "President Clinton's old-fashioned attitude toward debt might have had a more lasting effect on the nation's priorities. Instead, his influence was diluted by the uproar about Monica Lewinsky." When he first heard and read details of the Clinton-Lewinsky encounters, Greenspan writes, "I was incredulous. 'There is no way these stories could be correct,' I told my friends. 'No way.' " Later, when it was verified, Greenspan says, "I wondered how the president could take such a risk. It seemed so alien to the Bill Clinton I knew, and made me feel disappointed and sad."

    Known for his restrained if not incomprehensible public statements over the past several decades, Greenspan's direct criticism of Bush and his economic policies comes as the economy is emerging as an issue in the 2008 presidential race. And the man Greenspan praises so highly for fiscal probity is married to the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.

    The politically charged observations are scattered through the first half of the book, in which Greenspan offers a standard memoir covering his birth in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City in 1926 through his years as Fed chairman, from when he was appointed in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan to his retirement in 2006. His theme is the unequaled power of free-market capitalism; Greenspan calls himself a "libertarian Republican."

    The second half offers a graduate education in global economics that is at times lucid and at times dense. Greenspan occasionally slips into his notoriously complicated Fedspeak, touring the world with detailed analysis of the global economy and the prospects in Japan, Britain, France, China, Russia, India and just about everywhere else.

    He clearly considers China the big economic question of the future. "I have no doubt that the Communist Party of China can maintain an authoritarian, quasi-capitalist, relatively prosperous regime for a time. But without the political safety valve of the democratic process, I doubt the long-term success of such a regime," he writes.

    "The Age of Turbulence" is likely to be mined word by word on Wall Street, where the Masters of the Universe will seek clues to how to make billions. Greenspan dives deep into his economic data, his experiences, his philosophy and meetings with world political and economic leaders.

    He explains how an advanced economy hinges on property rights, the rule of law, a culture of trust, contracts, debt, reputation, self-interest and "creative destruction" -- the scrapping of old technologies and processes.

    He argues, for example, that the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States -- from the steel, automobile and textile industries to computers and telecommunications -- "is a plus, not a minus, to the American standard of living." He maintains that immigration reform, "by opening up the United States to the world's very large and growing pool of skilled workers," will help reduce the inequality of incomes.

    Without elaborating, he writes, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil."

    Looking ahead to 2030, he predicts that the U.S. gross domestic product will be 75 percent larger than it is now. His most dire forecast is that if the Federal Reserve is prevented from constraining inflation, the 10-year Treasury note would be "flirting with a double-digit yield sometime before 2030, compared with under 5 percent in 2006."

    Greenspan has nothing but praise for hedge funds, which he describes as "a vibrant trillion-dollar industry dominated by U.S. firms." He claims that hedge funds help eliminate inefficiency in the markets. "They are essentially free of government regulation, and I hope they will remain so." He scoffs at proposals to regulate them, declaring, "Why do we wish to inhibit the pollinating bees of Wall Street?"

    For all his wonkish ways, Greenspan writes with delight about his marriage to journalist Andrea Mitchell and their travels, friends and mutual love of classical music. He knows how to enjoy a good Vivaldi cello concerto in Venice.

    Though cautious about the coming decades, Greenspan ultimately shows a flash of hope at the end of his memoir. "Adaptation is in our nature," he writes, "a fact that leads me to be deeply optimistic about our future."

    Brady Dennis and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

    EDITOR'S NOTE: Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, is author of "Maestro: Greenspan's Fed and the American Boom," published in 2000. In his book, Greenspan acknowledges that in writing "The Age of Turbulence," he used interviews he had given Woodward.
     
  2. Rule0001

    Rule0001 Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,801
    Likes Received:
    1
    I lost respect for Greenspan when he started touting the problems of income inequality.

    How the hell can one be an objectivist, an care about income inequality?
     
  3. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,860
    Likes Received:
    41,372
    Because he's not an idiotic hardcore extremist.

    Anybody who thinks that rising income inequality is not a problematic issue need only look at the array of barely functional, failed klepto-states that lead the world in this category.
     
  4. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,208
    It's a danger for future economic growth. Why *wouldn't* you care about income inequality?

    GDP is not simply the sum of its parts. The distribution matters and affects the ability of an economy to continue to grow in the future.
     
  5. Major

    Major Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 1999
    Messages:
    41,683
    Likes Received:
    16,208
    This article is T_J's worst nightmare, by the way.
     
  6. Nolen

    Nolen Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 1999
    Messages:
    2,719
    Likes Received:
    1,262
    He'll be in here soon enough, trashing Greenspan to bits.

    I must say I am very surprised at Greenspan's praise of Clinton. Trashing the republican party, that's pretty easy these days.
     
  7. ymc

    ymc Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,969
    Likes Received:
    36
    I think so, too. It is the lovely "with us or against us" mentality. :cool:
     
  8. thumbs

    thumbs Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2002
    Messages:
    10,225
    Likes Received:
    237
    Disagree. Clinton could have been -- should have been -- known as a great president had he not had fatal flaws (like womanizing). The same statement could have been -- and should should have been -- applied to Richard Nixon (insecurity).
     
  9. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Which is the reason he will avoid this thread like the plague.
     
  10. Ottomaton

    Ottomaton Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2000
    Messages:
    19,201
    Likes Received:
    15,369
    This is the most important statement in the entire article. There is no such thing as a free lunch, despite what some of the more fervent supply-siders would have you believe. Clinton deserves major props for this, even though Bush has undone all of Clinton's gains.


    [rquoter]
    The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back.

    [/rquoter]
     
    #10 Ottomaton, Sep 15, 2007
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2007
  11. ymc

    ymc Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    1,969
    Likes Received:
    36
    I agree with you. But I suppose this is common sense except for the supply-siders.

    Eventually when dollar collapses, it will be basically like a huge flat tax on everyone. But I suppose the rich will have exchanged their dollars for something else before that and the middle class and the poor end up taking a huge hit. :(
     
  12. foo82

    foo82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2006
    Messages:
    923
    Likes Received:
    31
    Considering the majority of our middle east dealings has to do with oil, this is hardly a surprise. Why else would all the nations there hate us (besides the whole israel thing)?
     
  13. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    I got this anecdote from a reporter that had done some time in Washington, and I don't have any verifiable source. So take it for what it's worth:

    The head of the SEC during the mid-90s knew about the accounting practices of Enron, MCI, et al, long before anyone knew that they were committing fraud. He wanted to investigate them, had some ideas for reform, and went to the Justice Department about it. It went all the way to Clinton. Clinton went to Greenspan for advice. Greenspan told him that he absolutely shouldn't, because it would hurt the economy. So Clinton called off the SEC, which gave Enron 5 more years to rob shareholders.

    Greenspan would like Clinton, because Clinton did what exactly what he was told more than any other President.

    Really though, Clinton's inaction (in just about everything) is his legacy. He did less in 8 years than any President in recent history. The results of that inaction are mixed, but it has certainly shown preferable to what we've seen since.
     
  14. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    What to believe, the secondhand hearsay anecdote from someone on a basketball BBS or one of the more brilliant economic minds in the last fifty years telling a story in print from his direct experience with Clinton.
     
  15. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    I'm not disagreeing with him. I'm just saying that he's not telling the whole story. The owners of the Federal Reserve made a lot of money off the late 90's bubble.
     
  16. Deckard

    Deckard Blade Runner
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2002
    Messages:
    57,792
    Likes Received:
    41,231
    Link? weslinder, with all due respect, and I do respect you, as I hope you know, I couldn't disagree more with your post. Basically, you dismiss the opinions of arguably one of the most influential men in the last several decades, and a conservative Republican (a real conservative, not the charlatans we see today), on the most specious of reasons... he liked and respected Bill Clinton.



    Impeach Bush and Cheney, ASAP.
     
  17. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    Lots of really rich people did. Making a profit in a booming stock market is a far cry from holding back on investigating the kind of fraud that Enron, Worldcom, and Tyco were doing.

    Talk about conspiracy theories.
     
  18. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    I'm sorry. I really don't have one. It came up at a political conversation at a Bible study group two years ago. You are free to dismiss it outright if you wish.

    I respect Greenspan and his opinion a lot. I think he understood his power and truly ran the Federal Reserve for the good of the United States, which certainly hasn't been a consistent trait of Federal Reserve Chairmen since its inception. And I don't dislike Clinton. He was reasonably conservative and willing to stick to a very good status quo. In my book, he's a top 30 President.
     
  19. Rocket River

    Rocket River Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 1999
    Messages:
    65,255
    Likes Received:
    32,969
    as a gauge. . . Where is bush .. . In your book?

    Rocket River
     
  20. weslinder

    weslinder Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    12,983
    Likes Received:
    291
    No one knew the kind of fraud they were doing. The head of the SEC knew that the accounting practices had the potential of covering things up. It seems much worse in hindsight because we know the kind of fraud that was going on.
     

Share This Page