Greenspan says Clinton BEST!

[Popeye]

Yes. They are lies. If you look at the actual numbers, rather than white house press releases, the surplus dissappears. Wonder why that is?

Now, can you tell me what clinton did to accomplish those things you guys have called accomplishments?

I have already cited Clinton's budget reduction efforts of 1993, which are credited for both stimulating and laying the groundwork for the strong economy of the 1990's. I agree with topgun's previous post, the name Clinton has become synonymous with a good economy. No matter the facts, you will not accept them because you're a Clinton hater.

 

[palerider]

I have already cited Clinton's budget reduction efforts of 1993, which are credited for both stimulating and laying the groundwork for the strong economy of the 1990's. I agree with topgun's previous post, the name Clinton has become synonymous with a good economy. No matter the facts, you will not accept them because you're a Clinton hater.

Sorry, those things neither worked, nor could have contributed to what you guys called accomplishments even if they had worked.

And the fact is that neither you, nor top gun can describe anything that clinton did to achieve what you call his "accomplishments". Face it, he was no more than a stuffed suit who just happened to be in office during some good times. Which, by the way, might have lasted longer had he not raised taxes.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

And the icing on the cake. Life long Republican and Fed Chairman under 6 different Presidents says... CLINTON was the best! We don't have to keep saying it. He said it. He should know better than anyone else in the world!

Do you have an exact quote for us?

 

[palerider]

Do you have an exact quote for us?

Of course not, Greenspan never said any such thing. He may have spoken about the economy during the clinton years, but as these guys have shown without doubt, clinton had nothing to do with the economy, he was just there filling a suit and exploring alternative uses for cigars.

 

[Popeye]

Of course not, Greenspan never said any such thing. He may have spoken about the economy during the clinton years, but as these guys have shown without doubt, clinton had nothing to do with the economy, he was just there filling a suit and exploring alternative uses for cigars.

I don't know about an exact quote, but this should make some interesting reading for both you and our conservative moderator. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003885603_fedbook15.html

 

[palerider]

I don't know about an exact quote, but this should make some interesting reading for both you and our conservative moderator. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003885603_fedbook15.html

The 93 plan failed on all its major points. It didn't cause a drop in interest rates, it didn't reduce the deficit and because it failed on the first two points, it didn't cause the economy to grow. Clinton justified the tax increase by claiming that by reducing the defict it would cause interest rates to come down, thus stimulating the economy. Neither happened. The economy continued to grow in spite of him, not because of him.

Refer to the CBO projected annual deficits after the 93 budget plan. They projected deficits of 200 billion out to 2005. And any claim to growth as a result of the "plan" is laughable. The rate of growth in 1992 was 3% and this was on bush I's economy. After the "plan" was instituted, the growth climbed to 3.1% from 93 to 95. Later in the decade the economy did grow but it was the result of corporate downsizing and restructuring in the late 80's and the introduction of some new technologies. The only way clinton gets to claim any of that is to make the case that algore really did invent the internet.

The only thing that clinton did was nothing. If you are going to credit him for anything, then credit him for getting out of the way of the free market: He was generally free trade, he let Alan Greenspan keep inflation in check; he signed a "tax cut for the rich" in 1997; he signed a few deregulatory bills; and his administration adopted a hands-off policy for the internet. Give him credit for following the advise of the conservatives in the house.

 

[top gun]

Do you have an exact quote for us?

I watched him say it in his recent 60 minutes interview talking about his book. He went over all the various Presidents that had been in office during the time he was Fed Chairman. He made various statements about various Presidents on the economy & other traits and he made it abundantly clear that he was of the opinion that President Clinton's deep interest and similar views on how the economy should be run... major focus on deficit reduction as well as many other things put President Clinton in his most high regard in terms of the economy of any of the 6 he served under. Greenspan smiling said, "They called us the odd couple." Referring to their different natures but similar mindset on achieving a strong economy.

And he's said the same things on several other TV interviews I've watched. It's not a big secret. He also went on to say that at the end of Clinton's 2nd term he actually started to developed a concern that with the deficit being turned toward large surplus he was then concerned that having the projected amount of the Clinton surplus might have some unexpected effects on the economy that could be problematic.

Greenspan believes reducing soaring deficits are critical for long term prosperity... but he is also of the mind that the government probably should not build up large surpluses.

One last thing that everyone should, probably does, accept about deficits... surpluses... etc. They are always projected to some set future point in time. It's not like one year you have a huge deficit and the next you have a huge surplus. And of course you go with baseline figures that are not immune to some possible fluctuation.

But the entire point is that your economic policy either works down the debt over time i.e. President Clinton or balloons the debt over a similar time i.e. President Bush.

 

[palerider]

But the entire point is that your economic policy either works down the debt over time i.e. President Clinton or balloons the debt over a similar time i.e. President Bush.

Show me where the debt was worked down during clinton's administration? I keep looking at the graph, and I know the numbers are accurate but I just don't see any "working down".

 

[top gun]

Hey popeye... look at this link with multiple charts and all it's in-depth documentation. Here's the lead in...

United States National Debt

(1938 to Present)

An Analysis of the Presidents Who Are Responsible for the Borrowing

By Steve McGourty

Update History

6 May 2007, Third Revision

June 2006, Second Revision

April 2005, First Revision

July 2003, Original


The chart below, Figure 1, shows the United States national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1] and US Government data[2]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question and a lot of mathematical proof that the steepest upward rises in debt since the end of World War II, started with President Reagan and continued with other so called Neo-Conservatives. (See red in Figure 1 below. For larger views of any graph in this paper just put your mouse pointer over the graph and click on it).

www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

 

[palerider]

Hey popeye...[/B] look at this link with multiple charts and all it's in-depth documentation. Here's the lead in...

Hey popeye, top gun is unable to look at a simple chart and comprehend what it is showing and if someone tells him that it is showing what he wants it to say, he will disregard the obvious and believe them anyway.

The chart below, Figure 1, shows the United States national debt (per Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia[1] and US Government data[2]) with the various Presidents’ terms marked by vertical lines. Under President Clinton the growth in debt ceased, but note the radical change in direction since George W. Bush entered office. There is no question and a lot of mathematical proof that the steepest upward rises in debt since the end of World War II, started with President Reagan and continued with other so called Neo-Conservatives. (See red in Figure 1 below. For larger views of any graph in this paper just put your mouse pointer over the graph and click on it).

Either Steve McGourty is one of the most blatant liars I have ever seen, or he is an idiot that can't read a chart.

Show me where the debt ceased under clinton. The line clearly continues onward and upward. You might note that the increase levels off somewhat after the democrats lost the house and senate and republicans were holding the purse strings, but clearly the debt doesn't cease to rise.

www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm[/QUOTE]

 

[Popeye]

Hey popeye, top gun is unable to look at a simple chart and comprehend what it is showing and if someone tells him that it is showing what he wants it to say, he will disregard the obvious and believe them anyway.




Either Steve McGourty is one of the most blatant liars I have ever seen, or he is an idiot that can't read a chart.

Show me where the debt ceased under clinton. The line clearly continues onward and upward. You might note that the increase levels off somewhat after the democrats lost the house and senate and republicans were holding the purse strings, but clearly the debt doesn't cease to rise.

www.cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm

[/QUOTE]

How come everyone who supports the position that Clinton was good for the economy is a liar? There must be an awful lot of liars around, including Alan Greenspan. Even you have to admit that the debt "levels off somewhat" under Clinton, but you give the credit to the Republicans. The chart is actually very telling, and it tells a story that someone, in your state of denial, doesn't want to see. Bill Clinton was a heck of a president and if it wasn't for the 2 term limit, he'd still be the president.

 

[palerider]

How come everyone who supports the position that Clinton was good for the economy is a liar? There must be an awful lot of liars around, including Alan Greenspan. Even you have to admit that the debt "levels off somewhat" under Clinton, but you give the credit to the Republicans. The chart is actually very telling, and it tells a story that someone, in your state of denial, doesn't want to see. Bill Clinton was a heck of a president and if it wasn't for the 2 term limit, he'd still be the president.[/QUOTE]

I never said that everyone who supports that cliniton was good for the economy was a liar. I said that everyone who claims that clinton did anyting but get out of the way is a liar.

Top gun posted a link that claimed that the debt ceased to rise under clinton and the charts clearly indicate that it did not cease to rise. The only story that the chart tells is that anyone who claims that clinton reduced the debt is a liar.

And yes, I stated that it leveled off somewhat after the republicans took over and drug clinton kicking and screaming into the balanced budtget amendment. The balanced budget amendment was the only real thing that got done with regard to the debt during clinton's terms and he vetoed it two times before the republicans took over.

He signed the ballanced budget amendment into law under "duress" claiming that there would be people starving in the streets as a result. Now, he, and his acolytes like you and top gun are trying to claim that it was the best thing since sliced bread. You have very short memories or were simply too young to remember the event when it happened.

And if there weren't a two term limit, clinton would have never been elected because regan would have been in office.

 

[Popeye]

Greenspan's memoirs: Clinton saved, Bush spent




Bob Woodward
September 18, 2007



FORMER US president Bill Clinton emerges as the political hero in the memoirs of one of America's most powerful and influential economists of the past two decades, Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan, who served as Federal Reserve chairman for 18 years, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage".

But in his new book, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, he levels unusually harsh criticism at President George Bush and the Republican Party, arguing that Bush abandoned the central conservative principle of fiscal restraint.

"My biggest frustration remained the President's unwillingness to wield his veto against out-of-control spending," Greenspan writes. "To my mind, Bush's collaborate-don't-confront approach was a major mistake."

Greenspan accuses the Republicans, who held the majority in the US House of Representatives until last year, of being too eager to tolerate excessive federal spending in exchange for political opportunity. The Republicans, he says, deserved to lose control of Congress.

But he adds later: "I don't think the Democrats won. It was the Republicans who lost. The Democrats came to power in the Congress because they were the only party left standing."

Greenspan, 81, indirectly criticises his friend and colleague from the Ford administration, Vice-President Dick Cheney. Former Bush Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has quoted Cheney as once saying "Reagan proved deficits don't matter".

Greenspan says, "'Deficits don't matter', to my chagrin, became part of the Republicans' rhetoric." He argues that "deficits must matter" and that uncontrolled government spending and borrowing can produce high inflation "and economic devastation".

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 to unexpected directions."

"Little value was placed on rigorous economic policy debate or the weighing of long-term consequences." The large federal budget surpluses that were the basis for Bush's initial $US1.35 trillion tax cut "were gone six to nine months after George W. Bush took office."

By the end of last year, Greenspan writes with some bitterness, governance

had "become dangerously dysfunctional".

 

[Popeye]

I never said that everyone who supports that cliniton was good for the economy was a liar. I said that everyone who claims that clinton did anyting but get out of the way is a liar.

Top gun posted a link that claimed that the debt ceased to rise under clinton and the charts clearly indicate that it did not cease to rise. The only story that the chart tells is that anyone who claims that clinton reduced the debt is a liar.

And yes, I stated that it leveled off somewhat after the republicans took over and drug clinton kicking and screaming into the balanced budtget amendment. The balanced budget amendment was the only real thing that got done with regard to the debt during clinton's terms and he vetoed it two times before the republicans took over.

He signed the ballanced budget amendment into law under "duress" claiming that there would be people starving in the streets as a result. Now, he, and his acolytes like you and top gun are trying to claim that it was the best thing since sliced bread. You have very short memories or were simply too young to remember the event when it happened.

"An act of political courage", to quote Alan Greenspan, and he is referring to Clinton's budget reduction efforts in 1993 not later in his term. Face it, the evidence is overwhelming, Clinton spurred on the economy before the Republican Revolution of 1994. Do you disagree with Alan Greenspan?
Greenspan also says, that after Bush's initial tax cuts, the budget surpluses, "were gone 6 to 9 months after George W. Bush took office", claiming government had, under Bush, become "dangerously dysfunctional". Would you have us believe a renowned economist like Greenspan doesn't know what he is talking about? I think he's made both myself and topgun's points quite well.

 

[palerider]

"An act of political courage", to quote Alan Greenspan, and he is referring to Clinton's budget reduction efforts in 1993 not later in his term. Face it, the evidence is overwhelming, Clinton spurred on the economy before the Republican Revolution of 1994. Do you disagree with Alan Greenspan?

I suggest that both you and alan refer to the charts presented by you.

And any evidence that clinton spurred anyting but monica is entirely underwhelming.

GreeI think he's made both myself and topgun's points quite well.

Unfortunately, the numbers don't support the conclusions. But feel free to keep trying as there is a certain element of humor in it.