Greenspan says Clinton BEST!

[Coyote]

Alan Greenspan was originally appointed by Reagan and has served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. In fact, he describes himself as a "lifelong libertarian Republican". Which would be pretty conservative fiscally.

I tend to think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the economy, yet Republicans can't seem to accept it when he praises Clinton's economy.

 

[top gun]

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".

Good post Popeye...

Looking at the McGourty chart what we see is a very close to complete leveling of the line during Clinton as opposed to the skyrocketing UP line under Reagan and both Bush administrations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the angle of the up trend under Reagan, Bush #1 and then Bush #2 compared to Clinton in the middle. On both sides of Clinton just look at the horrendous upswing... just look at the angle up and then compare that to Clinton's 8 years in office. Speaks for itself.

Had Clinton's economic policy as he set forward been continued under Bush the line would have permanently stabilized and as revenue continued to come in the surplus would have been something very close to what was projected.

Man I miss having a President Clinton... looks like we may get another chance though!

 

[palerider]

I tend to think he knows what he is talking about when it comes to the economy, yet Republicans can't seem to accept it when he praises Clinton's economy.

So name what clinton did that would make it "clinton's" economy beyond simply being in office at the time that it happened.

 

[palerider]

Looking at the McGourty chart what we see is a very close to complete leveling of the line during Clinton as opposed to the skyrocketing UP line under Reagan and both Bush administrations. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the angle of the up trend under Reagan, Bush #1 and then Bush #2 compared to Clinton in the middle. On both sides of Clinton just look at the horrendous upswing... just look at the angle up and then compare that to Clinton's 8 years in office. Speaks for itself.

So now you have gone from reducing the debt to "almost" leveling out and rather than just admit that you were wrong, you attempt to divert attention to regan and bush all the while ignoring the fact that bush is at war, and regan had the soviet union to bring down. Oh. I almost forgot. You guys liked the soviet union didn't you?

The bottom line is that clinton did not reduce the debt as you claimed. The debate is over. You lost.

 

[Popeye]

The bottom line is that clinton did not reduce the debt as you claimed. The debate is over. You lost.

I notice you haven't had much to say about Alan Greenspan's praise of Clinton. Could it be that we are seeing a chink in palerider's armor? It is not topgun or myself who have lost the argument, it is you my friend, and no less than Alan Greenspan has delivered the defining blow.

 

[palerider]

Again, I ask. What did clinton do that would make the economy "his" beyond simply being in the office at that particular time. Until you can name it, alan greenspand doesn't lend weight to your argument. I have not argued that the economy wasn't good during clinton's term, I have argued that the only policy that he had that made it good was to simply stay out of the way as much as possible and let it go.

 

[top gun]

Way back @ POST #112 top gun explaining surplus/deficit timelines in blue...

Originally Posted by USMC the Almighty
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.

 

[Coyote]

So name what clinton did that would make it "clinton's" economy beyond simply being in office at the time that it happened.

I don't know enough about economics to be able to say. I trust the opinions of experts like Greenspan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402451.html

Greenspan, who had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage."............

However, he calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in facts," and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. "Here was a fellow information hound. . . . We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world. . . . I never ceased to be surprised by his fascination with economic detail: the effect of Canadian lumber on housing prices and inflation. . . . He had an eye for the big picture too."

During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless the deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told the president. "The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do. He was forcing himself to live in the real world."

Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first." Greenspan writes, "I played no role in finding the answer, but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."​

 

[vyo476]

So name what clinton did that would make it "clinton's" economy beyond simply being in office at the time that it happened.

Let's look at what Mr. Greenspan has to say:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003885603_fedbook15.html

A quote from the article:

Greenspan, who calls himself a "libertarian Republican" but had an eight-year alliance with Clinton and Democratic Treasury secretaries in the 1990s, praises Clinton's mind and his tough anti-deficit policies, calling the former president's 1993 economic plan "an act of political courage."

Here's another:

He calls Clinton a "risk taker" who had shown a "preference for dealing in facts," and presents Clinton and himself almost as soul mates. "Here was a fellow information hound. ... We both read books and were curious and thoughtful about the world."

During Clinton's first weeks as president, Greenspan went to the Oval Office and explained the danger of not confronting the federal deficit. Unless deficits were cut, there could be "a financial crisis," Greenspan told Clinton.

"The hard truth was that Reagan had borrowed from Clinton, and Clinton was having to pay it back. I was impressed that he did not seem to be trying to fudge reality to the extent politicians ordinarily do."

Dealing with a budget surplus in his second term, Clinton proposed devoting the extra money to "save Social Security first."

"I played no role in finding the answer," Greenspan writes, "but I had to admire the one Clinton and his policymakers came up with."

Greenspan interviewed Clinton for the book and clearly admires him. "President Clinton's old-fashioned attitude toward debt might have had a more lasting effect on the nation's priorities. Instead, his influence was diluted by the uproar about Monica Lewinsky."

I don't know so much about all the factoids Popeye and Top Gun have been posting (I was five the year Clinton was elected) but it seems as though Greenspan is saying that he admired Clinton because Clinton kept things from going to hell, rather than praising him on creating the amazing and wonderful economy of the nineties.

It's a tough call and without having Greenspan's book I'd prefer not to make it. The book has been out now since September 17th. If someone wants to pick it up, we might actually be able to take this thread somewhere that isn't in a circle. I'd volunteer - I love books - but sadly I have far too much reading to do for school this semester and if I so much as look at a book that isn't for class I'll probably die.

Any takers?

 

[palerider]

I don't know enough about economics to be able to say. I trust the opinions of experts like Greenspan:

Trusting "experts" in lieu of trying to learn for yourself is not a good thing. If clinton "handled" the economy, then someone here (don't you think?) should be able to step up to the plate and say specifically what he did by way of handling it. If you ask me questions about what any other president republican or democrat did to handle thier economy, I can tell you for good or bad. My position on this issue isn't based on my not liking clinton (which I didn't) it is based on the fact that he didn't "handle" the economy and the fact that none of the clintonites present here can step up and state what he did attests to the truth of that position.

The couple of things that have been mentioned that he did were abject failures. Are you saying that the failure of his policy resulted in the good economy?

 

[palerider]

I don't know so much about all the factoids Popeye and Top Gun have been posting (I was five the year Clinton was elected) but it seems as though Greenspan is saying that he admired Clinton because Clinton kept things from going to hell, rather than praising him on creating the amazing and wonderful economy of the nineties.

OK. What did he do to keep things from "going to hell" If things were indeed going to hell, and clinton did something; don't you think that someone here shoud be able to step up and say what he did? He failed to achieve the stated goals of his 93 budget plan. Was the booming economy a result of his failure?

 

[Coyote]

Trusting "experts" in lieu of trying to learn for yourself is not a good thing. If clinton "handled" the economy, then someone here (don't you think?) should be able to step up to the plate and say specifically what he did by way of handling it. If you ask me questions about what any other president republican or democrat did to handle thier economy, I can tell you for good or bad. My position on this issue isn't based on my not liking clinton (which I didn't) it is based on the fact that he didn't "handle" the economy and the fact that none of the clintonites present here can step up and state what he did attests to the truth of that position.

The couple of things that have been mentioned that he did were abject failures. Are you saying that the failure of his policy resulted in the good economy?

What I know is that the economy was good, the deficit was down and no one can tell me that high high deficits are good for the economy. The president is responsible directly or indirectly for the state of the economy. According to Greenspan - he was actively engaged. There are times when you have to trust experts - like your doctor or the guy that puts in your septic system...you inform yourself but without spending a great deal of time and effort you will not have the same level of knowledge and experience. Greenspan is credible to me because he is is widely respected in his field, served under a number of administrations both Republican and Democrat and is himself a conservative which leads me to think any bias would be against Clinton should there be one.

 

[Coyote]

Trusting "experts" in lieu of trying to learn for yourself is not a good thing. If clinton "handled" the economy, then someone here (don't you think?) should be able to step up to the plate and say specifically what he did by way of handling it.

Here is what I've found - some only peripherally effect the economy or do so in the long run not the short run and some I have no opinion pro or con about:

He cut the federal deficit by more than half. (this to me is incredibly important)

Secured the passage of the Uruguay Round of the GATT, projected to lower tariffs worldwide by $744 billion over ten years. The Uruguay Round cuts tariffs on manufactured goods by more than one-third overall, and eliminates tariffs in major markets in a number of sectors especially important to the U.S.

Secured the passage of NAFTA, which increases the chances that Mexico will make a rapid and peaceful transition to a developed, high-productivity, democratic society.

Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], thus boosting the rewards to work for low-income workers, and reducing the tax burden levied on 15 million working and lower middle class households.

Contained the winter 1994-1995 Mexican peso crisis. In the absence of the U.S.-led support package, Mexico might very well be in the middle of a Great Depression (rather than a severe recession) today. Other emerging market economies would have faced similar crises in the past year if the Mexican one had not been properly handled.

Made the federal income tax more progressive.

Improved the targeting of education funds by channeling more to school districts with large numbers of poor children.

Reduced the cost of student loans for college.

Doubled training funds for dislocated workers, to $1.1 billion a year.

 

[palerider]

What I know is that the economy was good, the deficit was down and no one can tell me that high high deficits are good for the economy. The president is responsible directly or indirectly for the state of the economy. According to Greenspan - he was actively engaged. There are times when you have to trust experts - like your doctor or the guy that puts in your septic system...you inform yourself but without spending a great deal of time and effort you will not have the same level of knowledge and experience. Greenspan is credible to me because he is is widely respected in his field, served under a number of administrations both Republican and Democrat and is himself a conservative which leads me to think any bias would be against Clinton should there be one.

The debt was not down. As has been the case every year since about 1962, each year has seen the debt rise to a new high. Clinton's years are no exception.

And as to trusting experts, I don't think so. Greenspan has been doing some "revising" of history in his book that casts a shaddow of doubt over his credibility. For example, he suggests that he didn't make any mistakes in his tenure. He says that he didn't endorse the tax cuts of 2001. He says that he had nothing to do with the present housing bubble. He says that he did not ignore the stock market bubble that cost trillions when it burst.

By the way, I don't blindly trust my doctor either, or the guy who works on the septic tank.

 

[palerider]

Here is what I've found - some only peripherally effect the economy or do so in the long run not the short run and some I have no opinion pro or con about:

He cut the federal deficit by more than half. (this to me is incredibly important)

That would truely be an accomplishment worthy of praise. What did he do to achieve such a worthy goal.

Secured the passage of the Uruguay Round of the GATT, projected to lower tariffs worldwide by $744 billion over ten years. The Uruguay Round cuts tariffs on manufactured goods by more than one-third overall, and eliminates tariffs in major markets in a number of sectors especially important to the U.S.

Those numbers were grossly over estimated as history has shown.

Secured the passage of NAFTA, which increases the chances that Mexico will make a rapid and peaceful transition to a developed, high-productivity, democratic society.

Uh huh. Have you looked at mexico lately? It has been almost 15 years. Clearly, it didn't happen and isn't likely to happen any time soon.

Expanded the Earned Income Tax Credit [EITC], thus boosting the rewards to work for low-income workers, and reducing the tax burden levied on 15 million working and lower middle class households.

He gave tax breaks to people who don't pay taxes. Income redistribution, doesn't it just make you gush with pride? And exactly what do you think that did for the economy?

Contained the winter 1994-1995 Mexican peso crisis. In the absence of the U.S.-led support package, Mexico might very well be in the middle of a Great Depression (rather than a severe recession) today. Other emerging market economies would have faced similar crises in the past year if the Mexican one had not been properly handled.

the difference between a recession and a depression is semantics. Mexico is in a depression and has been for decades. He may have well flushed the money down the toilet for all the good it did unless you call new cars, and fat bank accounts for corrupt politicos an improvement.

Made the federal income tax more progressive.

Punish success. Refer back to those numbers you posted and consider the difference between clintons tax increase which resulted in increased tax revenues being an ever larger percentage of the GDP vs Bush's tax cuts which resulted in increased revenues being an ever smaller percentage of the GDP. There is an important bit of information in those numbers coyote, I really wish you would grasp it.

Improved the targeting of education funds by channeling more to school districts with large numbers of poor children.

And the net result was?

Reduced the cost of student loans for college.

That constitutes handling the economy?

Doubled training funds for dislocated workers, to $1.1 billion a year.

And the net result was an increase in the size of the bureaucracy, but no increase in the numbers trained or the effectiveness of the program.