Though the reviews for “D-War” have been poor, Alan Greenspan’s new memoir gives almost as bad a review to the current American administration. Luckily, there are no planned sequels to either.
A Tale of Bankrupt Principles
Previous post: Rotten Tomatoes Brutalizing ‘D-War’
Next post: Working Out the Bugs
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
I respect Greenspan, but this seems like running for cover to me. this i
When Greenspan could have spoken out against fiscal irresponsibility at the beginning of the Bush/Cheney fiscal catastrophe. He didn’t, and in fact supported the trickle-down, rising-tide-all-boats arguments that he h
had never publicly endorsed before.
He had enormous influence by not speaking out when he could. Republican party members from a more traditional, responsible brand of governing could have used his opposition as cover to amend the tax-cut bills of 2000 and 2002. Supporters of these tax cuts would have been put on the defensive. Greenspan could have made a large difference.
But at this juncture, he could not find the guts to speak truth to power, and to do his job as the essential ‘General of the Economy’ the Fed chairman has become.
Now, he sees the mess he must have known would be coming, and is trying to duck out of responsibility with this too-late admission that the Bush tax cuts went far, far too far. This book sounds like chickenshit to me.
When you write comments, the typed letters
move into the far right column, and then
they disappear on posting.
What’s Greenspan complaining about? So what if Mr. Bush has indebted the country to the Red Chinese? He’s made the world safe for democracy.
Well, there’s Jeb…
Yeah get ready for the Clinton trilogy.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/09/i-have-had-to-t.html
speaking of the above
#3
“He’s made the world safe for democracy.”
I hope that’s sarcasm.
The world may not be safe, but I think it’s safer, thanks to President Bush. At least people are now calling terrorists “terrorists.”
It wasn’t safe before Bush came into office and it wont be safe once he leaves.
The Dems won’t admit their 8 years of mistakes before Bush came into office.
http://www.dojgov.net/Clinton_&_Terrorism-01.htm
Phhuuu . . . try the topic of fiscal responsibility and the failure of the current Republican party to adhere to any sound economic or governance principles other than those involving political rhetoric. It is difficult to talk of the enemies of America when one is busy inflicting harm from misguided policies and hubris born of ignorance.
That is an issue that Mr. Greenspan writes about in his memoir.
#10 – I agree that the current administration’s fiscal policies are nothing short of disastrous. But to slap the label “Republican” on those policies smacks of blind partisanship. Fact is, it’s the massive rise in entitlement spending under this administration that has led to soaring deficits—and that’s classic old-school Democratic governance, if you insist on branding it along party lines. A perfect example is No Child Left Behind, which betrays conservative principles from both the financial and local control perspectives. That train wreck was a partnership between Dubya and Sen. Ted “Negligent Homicide” Kennedy. Indeed, one reason (among many) for Duh Prez’s abysmal approval ratings is his alienation of the conservative base.
“Fact is, it’s the massive rise in entitlement spending under this administration that has led to soaring deficits”
Sorry, but it’s not a fact at all no matter how many times you heard Hannity or Coulter or Limbaugh say it. You are categorically wrong on this.
http://www.cbpp.org/9-27-06tax.htm
The above is a very simple analysis of Congressional Budget Office data. Scroll down slightly and you will see a graph assigning numerical responsibility to the Bush/Cheney deficits. And what do we see?
Tax cuts – 51% responsible
Increase in Entitlements – 10% responsible.
Below are links to 2 very good general articles explaining the fiscal catastrophe-in-progress.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_52/b3914021_mz007.htm
“But to slap the label “Republican” on those policies smacks of blind partisanship. ”
Well, since the tax cuts were passed by a Republican administration, a Republican Congress and a Republican Senate, I would call labelling them Republican an in-your-face statement of fact. Your sentence above, though, smacks of a desperate need to avoid responsiblity for the actions of the party you support, by spreading blame to those uninvolved.
Hugh, maybe when I get a chance I’ll check out the CBO numbers myself. In the meantime, I remain unconvinced by your citation of a simplistic (by your own admission) analysis by a left-leaning think tank.
One glaring flaw in their analysis: Deficits have DECREASED since the tax cuts were passed in 2003, despite steadily rising spending.
And you’re flat out wrong when you say that I support the Republicans. I don’t. I just get tired of the knee-jerk partisanship. The Democrats are absolutely no better, so unless you’re a blind partisan, criticize the policies, not the party.
Sorry for the assumption, then!
Ut, this IS politics, and we do not assess policies as if they just were handed down by god from the mountain. The Republican party enacted the early 2000 series of tax cuts. I think they were a terrible idea. Therefore, I criticize the Republican party for them. I see no reason to criticize the tax cuts sparing reference to the party that created and passed them, and you haven’t offered a reason why anyone should.
When the Republican party does something right, I applaud it. I don’t know where the hell you get ‘blind partisanship’ from me criticizing one policy.
Deficits have decreased since 2005, not 2003. http://www.cbo.gov/
There is some controversy over changes enacted in 2004 in how this was calculated.
Don’t get me started on NCLB.
The MSM was using the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” from back in the early 70s when George Bush Jr. was living a wanton life in Texas. You’re old enough to remember the PLO, the Red Army, Munich, and Aldo Moro, Gerry.
I would also point out the decent editorial in the NY Times about undoing the harm done by the current administration in their Military Commissions Act, an act that is contrary to the principles that our founding fathers set forth in the declaration of independence and constitution.
Elgin,
Gee I don’t know… There are rumblings that Shim has finished a script for a sequel and rumors that Sony will help finance D-Wars II.
Ewwww…
Tax cuts are great. The Repubs just forgot to carry out the other necessary part of the equation: reducing spending.
They didn’t “forget” — it has been deliberate. Reagan’s principle, let’s call it — “deficits don’t matter”, so let the good (for the wealthy) times roll.
Someone explain to me how there can be tax cuts, a fairly static workforce, increased spending and a shrinking deficit? Is this a return to voodoo economics?
# 21,
All can be accomplished as long as the economy grows and the Chinese keep buying our T-bills…
Certainly there’s been “indiscipline”. Budget deficits are deservedly a concern. However, a nation’s ability to pay off its debt is the key here. Contrast Japan’s debt to the America’s, particularly debt’s percent of GDP; it just may surprise you. Even prudent Singapore isn’t so hot. Korea looks quite good; how will that bode for it when it approaches the world to help finance reunification, (if it ever comes)? Yet, America faces ballooning Social Security and Medicare outflows, and such spending will certainly be detrimental to the budget.
You must log in to post a comment.