Republican Greenspan praises Bill Clinton.

[Bronco Bob]

FORMER US president Bill Clinton emerges as the political hero in the memoirs of one of America's most powerful and influential economists of the past two decades, Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage".

But in his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he levels unusually harsh criticism at President George Bush and the Republican Party, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.

"My biggest frustration remained the President's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."

Greenspan accuses the Republicans, who held the majority in the US House of Representatives 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 Congress.

But he adds 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 criticises his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice-President Dick Cheney. Former Bush Treasury secretary Paul 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."

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $US1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office."

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, governance
had "become dangerously dysfunctional".

In contrast, 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."

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."

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, Senator Hillary Clinton.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/busine...881433621.html

[Rigs11]

meanwhile in another book, ex mexican president Fox call Bush the cockiest person he's ever met.


Some Friend, W's Mexican Amigo
September 16, 2007 12:06 PM ET | Bedard, Paul | Permanent Link


At the White House, the president has got to be muttering "some friend" when he pores over the new autobio from his old buddy Vicente Fox, Mexico's former leader. That's because Fox raps his border pal as stubborn and "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life." Revolution of Hope, out next month, is a well-written, well-researched book about Fox's political career and presidency, which coincided with George W. Bush's. While he expresses a kinship with W, he breaks with the prez on the war and slams the GOP's immigration platform. He blames Bush's stubbornness on Iraq for bad international relations, calls his Spanish "grade-school level," and admits he didn't think Bush would ever become president. "I can't honestly say that I had ever seen George W. Bush getting to the White House," he pens.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washingt...can-amigo.html

[Crushaholic]

Fiscally, Bush has been a horrible president. He started out great with a supply-side economic mind, but he ended up allowing spending to be out of control. I'm not sure that Clinton deserves quite the amount of credit that Greenspan heaps on him, but he is right about one thing. The Democrats didn't win the election, the Republicans lost the election. Locally, my Republican Representative to the U.S. House was so arrogant that he hardly did any campaigning for his seat. His Democrat opponent wanted it more and she got it.

[jhat01]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

meanwhile in another book, ex mexican president Fox call Bush the cockiest person he's ever met.


Some Friend, W's Mexican Amigo
September 16, 2007 12:06 PM ET | Bedard, Paul | Permanent Link


At the White House, the president has got to be muttering "some friend" when he pores over the new autobio from his old buddy Vicente Fox, Mexico's former leader. That's because Fox raps his border pal as stubborn and "the cockiest guy I have ever met in my life." Revolution of Hope, out next month, is a well-written, well-researched book about Fox's political career and presidency, which coincided with George W. Bush's. While he expresses a kinship with W, he breaks with the prez on the war and slams the GOP's immigration platform. He blames Bush's stubbornness on Iraq for bad international relations, calls his Spanish "grade-school level," and admits he didn't think Bush would ever become president. "I can't honestly say that I had ever seen George W. Bush getting to the White House," he pens.

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washingt...can-amigo.html

Why would he blast Bush's immigration platform. Bush is more liberal than you, LABF, and Bronco Bob combined on immigration.

[Rigs11]

Originally Posted by Crushaholic

Fiscally, Bush has been a horrible president. He started out great with a supply-side economic mind, but he ended up allowing spending to be out of control. I'm not sure that Clinton deserves quite the amount of credit that Greenspan heaps on him, but he is right about one thing. The Democrats didn't win the election, the Republicans lost the election. Locally, my Republican Representative to the U.S. House was so arrogant that he hardly did any campaigning for his seat. His Democrat opponent wanted it more and she got it.

Ummm..so let's see Clinton inheirted a deficit and turned it into a surplus, and he should not get any credit?meanwhile numbnuts in the white house starts an illegal war and cuts taxes.

[Crushaholic]

Originally Posted by Rigs11

Ummm..so let's see Clinton inheirted a deficit and turned it into a surplus, and he should not get any credit?meanwhile numbnuts in the white house starts an illegal war and cuts taxes.

I didn't say ANY credit. He did some good things to tow the line on spending. HOWEVER, his wife was embarking on a health care plan that would have cost quite a bit of money. If that plan had seen the light of day, his economic legacy wouldn't have looked so rosy. That's what I meant by he doesn't deserve QUITE the credit Greenspan is heaping on him.

BTW, Bush's tax cuts probably would have been effective had 9/11 not occurred and sent the economy into a temporary setback. Plus, he has been reluctant to use the veto pen until recently.

[Spider]

Greenspan didnt get the memo about the blow job

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Good article.

The title alone should send W*GS into a full-on meltdown...

Republican Greenspan praises Bill Clinton

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by jhat01

Bush is more liberal than you, LABF, and Bronco Bob combined on immigration.

It ain't just immigration.

Don't forget increasing the size of the federal government, nation building, etc., etc.

Funny how conservatives b*tch about all these things but give a guy who violates their principles a second term just because he has an 'R' after his name.