Greenspan lambastes Bush administration's economic policies in new book

[E-Dog Night]

Take you pick from a myriad of sources. (http://www.google.com/news?ncl=1120806040&hl=en&topic=h)

Here's the Wall Street Journal's take:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118978549183327730.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

In a withering critique of his fellow Republicans, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says in his memoir that the party to which he has belonged all his life deserved to lose power last year for forsaking its small-government principles.

In "The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World," published by Penguin Press, Mr. Greenspan criticizes both congressional Republicans and President George W. Bush for abandoning fiscal discipline.

Mr. Greenspan, who calls himself a "lifelong libertarian Republican," writes that he advised the White House to veto some bills to curb "out-of-control" spending while the Republicans controlled Congress. He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

. . .

Mr. Greenspan writes that when President Bush chose Dick Cheney as vice president and Paul O'Neill as treasury secretary -- both colleagues from the Gerald Ford administration, during which Mr. Greenspan was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers -- he "indulged in a bit of fantasy" that this would be the government that would have resulted if Mr. Ford hadn't lost to Jimmy Carter in 1976. But Mr. Greenspan discovered that in the Bush White House, the "political operation was far more dominant" than in Mr. Ford's. "Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences," he writes.

(click on link for full article)

...

From the Times UK

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2461415.ece

He sums up his 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.”

In contrast Greenspan, an adviser to Gordon Brown who describes his own politics as “lifelong libertarian Republican”, called Clinton’s 1993 economic plan “an act of political courage”.

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 in unexpected directions.”

He rejects the Republican mantra that “deficits don’t matter” and says that in the Bush-Cheney White House “little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences”.

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says.

[isle-hawg]

Not suprising, from what I have read it seems he wrote about why many of us who consider ourselves fiscal consertaves have long since picked up with this adminsitration. That is the let's just pander to everyone now mentality to keep our jobs (at the expense of the long term health of the nation).

[ATV]

It should only be a short matter of time before someone in the Bush administration comes out to paint Greenspan as "some old misinformed left-leaning blah blah blah.....and by the way don't forget 9/11"

[panel]

Bush did spend WAY too much money, and also fought too hard to give the executive branch power. Now, if we get some REALLY sucky as prez, (not just sucky on principal) they will have the power to drag a nation down with them.

[PokerPacker]

Bush did spend WAY too much money, and also fought too hard to give the executive branch power. Now, if we get some REALLY sucky as prez, (not just sucky on principal) they will have the power to drag a nation down with them.

well i guess we just have to hope that Ron Paul wins the election

seriously, though, we need a president who knows how to not spend my money.

[Burgold]

Well, this is the first article I've read in a while that acknowledges how much true Republicans miss Clinton. Perhaps, if they can get over "the lie" and their need to hate everything blue (why do Republicans hate Ray Charles) we can get back to work.

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/ar/_a/greenspan-bashes-bush-over-spending/20070915222409990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

He says the effects of globalization, which have helped lower inflation pressures and interest rates around the world, will eventually recede. Unless the Fed takes action, Greenspan suggests that inflation will build "in the next few years," according to USA Today.

The ex-Fed chief writes that he regrets the loss of fiscal discipline under Bush.

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

Greenspan long has argued that persistent budget deficits pose a danger to the economy over the long run.

At the Fed, he repeatedly urged Congress to put back in place a budget mechanism that requires any new spending increases or tax cuts to be offset by spending reductions or tax increases.

Large projected surpluses were the basis for Bush's $1.35 trillion, 10-year tax cut approved in the summer of 2001.

Budget experts projected the government would run a whopping $5.6 trillion worth of surpluses over the subsequent decade after the cuts. Those surpluses, the basis for Bush's campaign promises of a tax cut, never materialized.

"In the revised world of growing deficits, the goals were no longer entirely appropriate," Greenspan noted. Bush, he said, stuck with his campaign promises anyway. "Most troubling to me was the readiness of both Congress and the administration to abandon fiscal discipline."

[ACW]

Random interesting fact: Greenspan started out as a disciple of Ayn Rand.

[heyholetsgogrant]

It should only be a short matter of time before someone in the Bush administration comes out to paint Greenspan as "some old misinformed left-leaning blah blah blah.....and by the way don't forget 9/11"

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: exactly....btw I'm trying to figure out where all the money whet that bush and the republican congress spent. You figure with the gazillions hes spent we wouldn't have crumbling infrastructure.

-Grant

[SnyderShrugged]

I always thought that Greenspan over the fed was a contradiction. His small government belief system that he held prior to that role is totally opposite of what the realities of the Fed are all about. I'd like to think that he was a force that held it in check, but history will tell the whole story.

It's also interesting that Greenpan has predicted that a 3rd party will come to power either in the 2008 or 2012 races. That would be groovy.

[PokerPacker]

It's also interesting that Greenpan has predicted that a 3rd party will come to power either in the 2008 or 2012 races. That would be groovy.

represent, libertarians! :point2sky

[Joe Sick]

Why does Greenspan hate America?

[The_cavalierman]

I am waiting to see how the Bush administration tries to discredit a man with more credibility than the last 2 presidents combined.

When Greenspan starts knuckling down the USS Bush-Tanic....time for even the most brainwashed zealots to grab a life jacket and head for the life rafts.

[Joe Sick]

While his declaration that America’s prime motive for the Iraq war was oil will set off one political storm, his onslaught against Republican fiscal mismanagement will cause another, just as the economy becomes a big issue in the primary election campaign."

I'm actually surprised the comments were more about Bush's fiscal incompetence rather than this.

Also, isn't it a libertarian policy that they would eliminate the Federal Reserve, since it is neither federal nor a reserve?

Lastly, can I get a link where Greenspan said a 3rd party guy would win in the next 5 years?

[PokerPacker]

Also, isn't it a libertarian policy that they would eliminate the Federal Reserve, since it is neither federal nor a reserve?

it certainly is on the agenda.

[chomerics]

Not to defend Bush or anything, this is the SAME EXACT MAN who advised Americans to "Take an ARM loan" in 2004 because they would be better off :doh: Mind you, this is only 2 years before the bubble burst, and at the peak of the boom. . .that combined with an urging of people in 2004 to go into ARMs because they could save money :doh1:

Granted, his advice is not the sole reason for the recent ARM failures, but it is a factor in the amount of ARM mortgages being financed. . .

In a standing-room-only speech to the Credit Union National Association meeting here, Greenspan also said U.S. household finances appeared generally sound, despite rising debt levels and bankruptcy filings. Low interest rates and surging home prices have given consumers flexibility to manage debt, he said.

"Overall, the household sector seems to be in good shape," Greenspan said.

While borrowers can refinance fixed-rate mortgages, Greenspan said homeowners were paying as much as 0.5 to 1.2 percentage points for that right and the protection against a potential rate rise, which could increase annual after-tax payments by several thousand dollars.

He said a Fed study suggested many homeowners could have saved tens of thousands of dollars in the last decade if they had ARMs. Those savings would not have been realized, however, had interest rates shot up.

"American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage," Greenspan said.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm

So take anything he says with a grain of salt. This is also the man who backed the Bush tax cuts he is now saying hurt us. . .It's funny how people have revisionist histories of their own legacy and selective memory loss. I think Mr. Greenspan should revisit his own advice in the 2000-2005 periods, because he would find many of the things he is currently disagreeing with post facto, he actually backed when they came up.

[heyholetsgogrant]

Not to defend Bush or anything, this is the SAME EXACT MAN who advised Americans to "Take an ARM loan" in 2004 because they would be better off :doh: Mind you, this is only 2 years before the bubble burst, and at the peak of the boom. . .that combined with an urging of people in 2004 to go into ARMs because they could save money :doh1:

Granted, his advice is not the sole reason for the recent ARM failures, but it is a factor in the amount of ARM mortgages being financed. . .

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/fed/2004-02-23-greenspan-debt_x.htm

So take anything he says with a grain of salt. This is also the man who backed the Bush tax cuts he is now saying hurt us. . .It's funny how people have revisionist histories of their own legacy and selective memory loss. I think Mr. Greenspan should revisit his own advice in the 2000-2005 periods, because he would find many of the things he is currently disagreeing with post facto, he actually backed when they came up.

Yea its unfortunate. Everything in our government is after the fact, first George Tenet now Greenspan.

-Grant

[Burgold]

Greenspan gave a very interesting interview on 60 minutes. I was more impressed with him than I thought I would be. Also, didn't know that he started out as a proffessional jazz musician in his youth.

[Riggo-toni]

He says President Bush's failure to do so "was a major mistake." Republicans in Congress, he writes, "swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose."

Soooooo true!!!!

[gbear]

I found the 60 min interview very informative. You want to talk credibility? Evidently he can still cause the markets to flop on a word because he is still viewed as some what of an economic oracle. I think he's correct though that he should feel fine doing interviews now. He waited the required time after leaving his job, and now he should be free to make his living...and his living involves speaking/writing about what he knows however inconvenient that may be.

I found it interesting that he viewed Clinton as the smartest of the presidents he worked with. His views on Bush senior weren't very flattering though I got the impression that was mostly because he felt used in an inpropper way. He had some flattering words on Reagan's charisma...no shock as he was very charismatic.

Anyway, I thought the interview was fanatastic. He's still an interesting man.

[PokerPacker]

So take anything he says with a grain of salt. This is also the man who backed the Bush tax cuts he is now saying hurt us.

he was on 60 minutes the other night and said that he did advocate A tax cut, but not the bush tax cut.

[Burgold]

he was on 60 minutes the other night and said that he did advocate A tax cut, but not the bush tax cut.

I think he also said that while he was originally for the tax cut as circumstances changed he changed his opinion and was dismayed at the rigidity of the Bush Administration. He said that they displayed an inability to adapt as economic conditions changed.

[PokerPacker]

don't remember that part, but i'll take your word for it (i didn't see the whole thing)

[zoony]

I caught Greenspan's interview on 60 minutes last night as well. If there was ever a personality type that I felt comfortable with at the helm of the US Economy, he's the guy.

Although his record is exemplary, I do think that he played it a little too fast and loose for too long, resulting in the credit crunch we're experiencing today.

Greenspan is right on point with his criticism of the GOP. Their refusal to cut spending and slash government when they had the chance is the reason they are not in power anymore. It explains how a party as weak and helpless as the dems can get voted into office.

[Air Force Cane]

As if Hillary nationalizing health care which is 1/7th of the entire economy is going to be great for our fiscal policy! Wonder why they don't take quotes of Greenspan on that issue

[Predicto]

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

Good lord. In a thread about Alan Greenspan, that was the best you could do?