Alan Greenspan blasts Bush/Republicans, praises Clinton

gmb92 · #1 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 09:13 AM

Let the Republican personal smearing of Greenspan begin...

Quote:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 14 — Alan Greenspan, who was chairman of the Federal Reserve for nearly two decades, in a long-awaited memoir, is harshly critical of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the Republican-controlled Congress, as abandoning their party’s principles on spending and deficits.

Mr. Greenspan writes in his memoir that President Bush was blinded by politics.

In the 500-page book, “The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World,” Mr. Greenspan describes the Bush administration as so captive to its own political operation that it paid little attention to fiscal discipline, and he described Mr. Bush’s first two Treasury secretaries, Paul H. O’Neill and John W. Snow, as essentially powerless.

Mr. Bush, he writes, was never willing to contain spending or veto bills that drove the country into deeper and deeper deficits, as Congress abandoned rules that required that the cost of tax cuts be offset by savings elsewhere. “The Republicans in Congress lost their way,” writes Mr. Greenspan, a self-described “libertarian Republican.”

“They swapped principle for power. They ended up with neither. They deserved to lose” in the 2006 election, when they lost control of the House and Senate.

On Clinton...

Quote:

Of the presidents he worked with, Mr. Greenspan reserves his highest praise for Bill Clinton, whom he described in his book as a sponge for economic data who maintained “a consistent, disciplined focus on long-term economic growth.”

It was a presidency marred by the Monica Lewinsky scandal, he writes, but he fondly describes his alliance with two of Mr. Clinton’s Treasury secretaries, Robert E. Rubin and Lawrence H. Summers, in battling financial crises in Latin America and then Asia.

By contrast, Mr. Greenspan paints a picture of Mr. Bush as a man driven more by ideology and the desire to fulfill campaign promises made in 2000, incurious about the effects of his economic policy, and an administration incapable of executing policy.

JP5 · #2 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 11:08 AM

I AGREE with Greenspan.....except for the part about Clinton, of course. The Republicans DID deserve to lose. They DID give away principle for power....and lost both. That's why I'm so glad to see many old Republicans leaving. It's time to get some new blood in there....even if it means being out of power for a while.

Democrats will be facing the same fate....as they have also NOT kept their promises and continue to spend and earmark Big Time.

AND it is the Democrats who should be apologizing to Greenspan. The whole time he was in office, he was blasted by every Democrat I ever debated with....as being 'in-bed' with Republicans because he is one.

Apologies anyone?

BoogiePeople · #3 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 11:39 AM

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree with what he said as well. The Demopublicans have lost complete touch with what a "conservative" is. They wouldn't know how to save a penny, if you took it out of their hands altogether. As far as Clinton, he wasn't a bad president, but my only complaint was that he made some mistakes that never really showed themselves until after he was out of office.

I'd still like to see an independant win the White House. Perhaps it would teach this godawful congress a thing or two.

gmb92 · #4 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 12:39 PM

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

JP5 · #5 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 01:05 PM

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/

gmb92 · #6 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

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.

Not exactly. When adjusted for inflation and labor force growth, it's actually a significant decline. The tax cuts targeted income taxes - personal income, capital gains and dividends (mainly benefiting the wealthy). Examine revenues from this source from 2000 through 2006. Page 3:

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

2000: 1,005
2006: 1,044

This is a 3.9% increase in actual dollars. However, accumulated inflation during this time period has been around 18%. In addition, labor force growth (those available to work) has increased about 6%. More potential workers generally means more taxes collected and more demand for outlays. Thus, adjusting for these 2 factors shows that revenues from income taxes actually have dropped about 20%. Contrast this to a 111% increase in actual dollars from 1992-2000. Adjusting for these 2 factors still nets a very strong surge, in part due to a tax increase on high-income taxpayers in 1993, one that had no noticeable negative effect on the economy.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

A third factor is related to demographics. Baby boomers have reached peak earnings, thus bringing in more revenues to the treasury. This factor will reverse soon.

A fourth factor is government spending. Outlays have increased 62% in actual dollars (well beyond inflation and labor force growth). A benefit that partially offsets the cost is that the spending can generate tax revenues. Giving bonuses to those who sign their life away to Iraq results in more taxes collected, for instance. Interesting that neocons don't cite this benefit to the war.

The other 2 sources of revenue (besides income taxes) that have boosted overall revenues are payroll and corporate taxes. Payroll tax revenues continue to increase in part to the first 3 factors mentioned. There's been no tax cut in this area. Corporate taxes collected (a small portion of overall taxes collected comes from corporate taxes) have increased substantially. Corporate taxes have not been cut. In fact, the modest progressive tax brackets (designed to help small businesses) have not even been adjusted for inflation the way personal tax brackets are each year. If you've read this far and are interested, I can provide a source for this. The result is more corporate tax income being subject to higher rates, a subtle form of a tax hike. Overriding this, however, are the record corporate profits we've seen from big oil and companies doing war-related business. War does temporarily boost economic growth although it's not a net long-term benefit.

f100supersabr · #7 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 06:43 PM

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!!

JP5 · #8 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 07:04 PM

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.

JP5 · #9 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmb92";p=&quot

Quote:

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.

Not exactly. When adjusted for inflation and labor force growth, it's actually a significant decline. The tax cuts targeted income taxes - personal income, capital gains and dividends (mainly benefiting the wealthy). Examine revenues from this source from 2000 through 2006. Page 3:

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

2000: 1,005
2006: 1,044

This is a 3.9% increase in actual dollars. However, accumulated inflation during this time period has been around 18%. In addition, labor force growth (those available to work) has increased about 6%. More potential workers generally means more taxes collected and more demand for outlays. Thus, adjusting for these 2 factors shows that revenues from income taxes actually have dropped about 20%. Contrast this to a 111% increase in actual dollars from 1992-2000. Adjusting for these 2 factors still nets a very strong surge, in part due to a tax increase on high-income taxpayers in 1993, one that had no noticeable negative effect on the economy.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt

A third factor is related to demographics. Baby boomers have reached peak earnings, thus bringing in more revenues to the treasury. This factor will reverse soon.

A fourth factor is government spending. Outlays have increased 62% in actual dollars (well beyond inflation and labor force growth). A benefit that partially offsets the cost is that the spending can generate tax revenues. Giving bonuses to those who sign their life away to Iraq results in more taxes collected, for instance. Interesting that neocons don't cite this benefit to the war.

The other 2 sources of revenue (besides income taxes) that have boosted overall revenues are payroll and corporate taxes. Payroll tax revenues continue to increase in part to the first 3 factors mentioned. There's been no tax cut in this area. Corporate taxes collected (a small portion of overall taxes collected comes from corporate taxes) have increased substantially. Corporate taxes have not been cut. In fact, the modest progressive tax brackets (designed to help small businesses) have not even been adjusted for inflation the way personal tax brackets are each year. If you've read this far and are interested, I can provide a source for this. The result is more corporate tax income being subject to higher rates, a subtle form of a tax hike. Overriding this, however, are the record corporate profits we've seen from big oil and companies doing war-related business. War does temporarily boost economic growth although it's not a net long-term benefit.

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

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.

Blade · #10 (**permalink**) 09-15-2007, 08:38 PM

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.

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