Greenspan speaks

Read the damn PdB. Don't let Ashcroft eliminate the counter-terrorism budget at FBI. Don't waste time on missile defense when "the entire system is blinking red." And so on.
I do recal the Republicans talking about the budget proposals in 93-94, promising that the Clinton plan woulddestroy the economy and plunge us into a recession. They thought the president had some effect on the economy. How'd that work out?
Anyway, back on topic, old Bubble Man sems to have his finger on something:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece

 

Have said this for a long time . . . best of all possible worlds is a Dem president and GOP congress. Too bad we're years and years away from possibly ever seeing that again.

 

OK, I'll bite and add my two cents.

1. I love the AP story and how Alan describes himself as a libertarian Republican. You can't be both. They're two different parties and two different philosophies. The closest person to this description is Drew Carey.

2. I will grant that Clinton presided over an economic expansion, but toward the end that expansion was smoke and mirrors. The Internet boom got way out of hand -- to Greenspan's credit, he tried to rail it in ("irrational exuberance", etc) but there's no defense against people acting stupid. It's the same thing that's derailing this current expansion, people (in this case, subprime lenders) acting stupid and jeopardizing the whole economy in the process.

3. I may disagree with Clinton on an awful lot, but like others I will give him applause for "ending welfare as we know it". It was long overdue and actually took people off the dole and put them out to work for a living (or, in this case, a check... I don't know if you can say a living, but that's just me)

4. Clinton's tax increase in 1993 actually caused the economy to wobble a bit, but a combination of other economic factors and Greenspan's management ability prevented the USA from recession.

In short, it sounds like a decent book to read and he does have his facts straight. I'll always vote Republican, but even I admit the party has lost its way on a lot of topics and maybe it will take a couple rough elections to get things in order.

 

Universal health care is comong folks, it's just a matter of when and to what extent.

If the govt will bail out auto and airline industries - it most certainly will be the safety net for health care.

Through two pages no one has argued that Greenspan is wrong and Clinton was a better steward for the economy than his GOP successor.

Why?

Clinton gets credit for doing something - W has shredded our Constitution - that's all.

Give the GOP all the credit you want, but one has to wonder how they get the credit for the 1990s but when there is a GOP Congress and GOP President how spending hits all-time highs.

Here's a free lesson, by spending more on things like welfare reform and Pell Grants, it sets the table for future revenue growth and less drain on government spending. Welfare reform and an increase in college educated population cost more on the front end but its paid/pays dividends now.

Is that dumbed down enough?

 

Uh, what about Ron Paul? He's a libertarian who's running as a Republican. (And didn't he run before as a capital-L Libertarian?) Yeah, they're different parties and different philosophies, but from a practical sense, there are a ton of people with libertarian mindsets who vote Republican -- simply because their vote's going to have more of an impact that way.

 

That's patently unfair. Bush read 2 Shakespears.

And yes, after some early missteps, Bill Clinton's foreign policy was good for America. He didn't lose either of his two wars, and casualties in them were minimal.

 

Wait, you can't be a libertarian Republican?


Interesting.

 

Yeah, that Somalia thing was a raging success ...

 

There wasn't a war in Somalia.