Alan Greenspan blasts Bush/Republicans, praises Clinton - Page 2

gmb92 · #11 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 07:08 AM

Quote:

You're trying hard gmb....but it's not working. I'll take the actual Treasury Reports over those of the CBO....congress' internal budget office....anyday.

Actually, you're taking some rhetoric from the White House Budget Director over hard data from the CBO. What specifically are you attempting to refute? The 3.9% growth in income tax revenues during the last 6 years vs the 111% from the Clinton years?

Quote:

When one compares apples to apples....instead of apples to tractors......there's no doubt the tax cut has resulted in record-level revenues.

Perhaps I've missed something. What is the apple to tractor comparison you're referring to?

Quote:

Even though Clinton was president during the Internet boom early in his administration....revenues didn't start to increase until towards the end. That's because he refused to cut taxes....and instead RAISED them early in his administration. Had he cut taxes, the economy during his years would have been much better.

Actually, revenues from income taxes increased substantially during Clinton's first few years in office - about 7% during each of his first and second years. This was at a time when the country was burdened with high debt interest payments, which weighed down the economy. Economic growth during this administration was very high and not affected by raising taxes on the wealthy.

gmb92 · #12 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blade";p=&quot

Greenspan has no standing to criticize others. He cut the federal funds rate to 1% after 9-11, and talked up adjustable mortgages in 2004 - both acts set the ground work for the current subprime loan fiasco, which in turn is pulling down the stock market and house values.

The article touches on this criticism too and I agree with it. Greenspan was too aggressive in cutting rates. It most certainly boosted the economy but has lead to mild inflation and the housing bubble.

Mack · #13 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmb92";p=&quot

Forgot the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/14/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss

Quote:

Though he publicly disagreed with Mr. Bush’s supply-side approach to tax cuts, urging Congress to offset the cost with savings elsewhere, he refrained from public criticism that could have shifted the debate. His willingness to criticize now, 18 months after leaving office, may open him to the accusation of failing to speak out when it could have affected policy.

Essentially, if you can't cut spending to offset revenues lost in a tax cut, don't cut taxes. Doing one without the other is irresponsible. The reason Republican Greenspan praises Clinton is that he took a huge fiscal mess and helped create a budget surplus through sound fiscal policy, starting with the 1993 Deficit Reduction Act.

He also re-iterates Paul O'Neill's issues with the ideologues.

Quote:

“My friend,” he writes of Mr. O’Neill, “soon found himself to be the odd man out; much to my disappointment, economic policy making in the Bush administration remained firmly in the hands of the White House staff.”

Former Treasury Secretary O'Neill criticized the Bush tax cuts on similar grounds:

Quote:

”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.”

Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

The former treasury secretary accuses Vice President Dick Cheney of not being an honest broker, but, with a handful of others, part of "a praetorian guard that encircled the president" to block out contrary views. "This is the way Dick likes it," says O’Neill.

http://www.informationclearinghouse....rticle5510.htm

You said...."Essentially, if you can't cut spending to offset revenues lost in a tax cut, don't cut taxes."

Wrong. Instead of losing revenue, cutting taxes actually INCREASED revenues.

"Revenue collections hit record high in April
Government spending also at an all-time high"
Updated: 5:06 p.m. CT May 10, 2007

WASHINGTON - Federal revenue collections hit an all-time high in April, contributing to a further improvement in the budget deficit for the year.

Releasing its monthly budget report, the Treasury Department said Thursday that through the first seven months of this budget year, the deficit totals $80.8 billion, significantly below the $184.1 billion imbalance run up during the first seven months of the 2006 budget year."

"White House Budget Director Rob Portman said the surge in tax revenues over the past two years was directly related to the economic rebound spurred by the Bush tax cuts. He said Congress should reject efforts to roll back the tax relief.

“With strong economic growth and spending restraint, we can continue to reduce budget deficits and balance the budget as the president has proposed,” Portman said in a statement.

For April, revenue receipts totaled $383.64 billion while spending totaled $205.97 billion, leaving a surplus for the month of $177.7 billion."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18595849/

This is the dumbest argument in the Republican arsenal. Apparently the concepts of regular economic growth and inflation aren't a part of supply side economics.

f100supersabr · #14 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP5";p=&quot

Quote:

Originally Posted by f100supersabr";p=&quot

I really agree with and like this quote very much !

Quote:

"My biggest frustration remained the president's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan wrote.1

Whenever I mentioned the same thing on this forum most of the NEOCONartists would just blame the DEMS or say that the Dems did it to!!

That's because Clinton didn't really start cutting the budget until the Republicans took over in 1996 and made him. He cut welfare then too......feet held to the fire by Republicans.

I think that you are only partially right about Clinton being forced to cut spending by the REPUBTUBS. Put aside his out of marriage sexual proclivaties and look at his record and it is mostly a moderate one.

Remember that Clinton as was Lieberman an intergral part of the Democratic Ledership Council; hardly a pack of liberali's.!!

Blade · #15 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Even though Clinton was president during the Internet boom early in his administration....revenues didn't start to increase until towards the end. That's because he refused to cut taxes....and instead RAISED them early in his administration. Had he cut taxes, the economy during his years would have been much better.

Clinton cut capital gain taxes to 20% - one of the few things he did right during his administration. It was at the behest of then secretary of the treasury Bob Rubin, one of the few Clintonistas with his head screwed on right. It was after that that revenues increased.

Now, Charlie Rangel, head of the powerful House Ways and Means committee, is talking about having the "Mother of all Reforms", and we all know what democrats mean by "reform" either kick open the gates to be overrun by aliens, or increase taxes. The dems don't learn from history, but it is the people who will pay the price for their ignorance.

gmb92 · #16 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Clinton cut capital gain taxes to 20% - one of the few things he did right during his administration. It was at the behest of then secretary of the treasury Bob Rubin, one of the few Clintonistas with his head screwed on right. It was after that that revenues increased.

Incorrect. First, the reduction in capital gains lead to a long-term loss in revenues, although a slight gain in 1998 since it encouraged the sale of long-term assets. Other provisions of the modest 1997 act were phased in and overall the negative effects on revenues were relatively small.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=...e=0&sequence=2

Second, individual income tax revenues also increased 74% during Clinton's first 6 years and before the 1997 Act began to have an effect.

Page 3:

http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf

Rubin indeed had his head screwed on right but you're confusing Reaganomics with Rubinomics (both terms are misleading since neither individual invented the economic policies their administrations they worked for are associated with). Rubin is a deficit hawk and patently against deficit-financed tax cuts.

gmb92 · #17 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

I think that you are only partially right about Clinton being forced to cut spending by the REPUBTUBS.

With regards to token spending cuts such as Welfare Reform, Republicans certainly created pressure for it, but it was largely bi-partisan and the effects had a relatively small impact on spending. Clinton was never forced to sign anything and vetoed quite a lot of Republican-sponsored bills. Of greater impact was the reduction of the bloated post-cold-war military budget, which Republicans were staunchly against. The CBO link shows the increase in outlays througout the Clinton presidency, which is less than 30%, a little below inflation and labor force growth during that time period. The same Republican Congress (give or take a few faces) that Republicans claim controlled spending had free reign over 6 years of the Bush Administration. The result was a 62% increase in outlays. Cuts to things like federal student aid may have a noticeable impact on college students but not to the bottom line.

gmb92 · #18 (**permalink**) 09-16-2007, 10:13 PM

In the 60 Minutes interview, Greenspan reveals the Bush Administration spun his comments on tax cuts. The Bush Administration attempt to mislead? What else is new?

Quote:

"Because they could have and the numbers were still large enough," Greenspan says. "I never explicitly stated that I was in favor of the Bush tax cut. That's what the Bush administration interpreted, but I never said... I was in favor of 'a' tax cut."

Greenspan came to favor a tax cut as a way to avoid constant surpluses. Gore also proposed a tax cut in 2000, although one more fiscally responsible and less supply-side in nature.

Quote:

The outcome? The surplus evaporated and the deficits returned. Greenspan had proposed that in that case the Bush administration adjust and trim back the tax cuts. But that never happened.

"Well, remember that their economic policy, largely, was to take the proposals made during the campaign when there was a prospective very large surplus, and that those policies continued in place irrespective of what was happening to the surplus," Greenspan says.

"That's very rigid," Stahl remarks.

"I don't know if it was rigid, it was wrong," Greenspan says.

Greenspan says he was especially surprised and disappointed by his old friend Dick Cheney. "He was much less focused on restraining spending than I would have liked," Greenspan explains.

Cheney has said deficits don't matter, but Greenspan says, "Well, I think he was mistaken on that."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...67_page5.shtml

JP5 · #19 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 04:00 AM

Yes......Republicans are actually FREE to STEP OFF THE PLANTATION and compliment a Democrat occassionally if they choose to. Imagine that. Something one rarely sees a Democrat do. A Democrat official goes against the party-line and he's out the door. Just ask Joseph Lieberman.

justabubba · #20 (**permalink**) 09-17-2007, 05:34 AM

Quote:

The outcome? The surplus evaporated and the deficits returned. Greenspan had proposed that in that case the Bush administration adjust and trim back the tax cuts. But that never happened.

"Well, remember that their economic policy, largely, was to take the proposals made during the campaign when there was a prospective very large surplus, and that those policies continued in place irrespective of what was happening to the surplus," Greenspan says.

"That's very rigid," Stahl remarks.

"I don't know if it was rigid, it was wrong," Greenspan says.

Greenspan says he was especially surprised and disappointed by his old friend Dick Cheney. "He was much less focused on restraining spending than I would have liked," Greenspan explains.

Cheney has said deficits don't matter, but Greenspan says, "Well, I think he was mistaken on that."

put down the kool aid and look at what happened. starve the beast is THE neocon strategy to remake government such that it could not be put back together. there was to be insufficient revenue available to fund the programs that help people. because the givernment would not have the money needed to fund the programs the programs would dissolve ... but here is the key ... the programs would fold as a result on non-appropriation and not as a result of legislation. they knew the public would never support the republican party actually voting to eliminate public assistance programs, so they did it covertly rather than overtly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starve-the-beast
recognize that an early starve the beast proponent was none other than the person assigned to identify the running mate to be on the ticket with georgie bush: dick cheney

wake up America!

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode